Course Book One by MMWU

WELCOME TO

MINISTRIES

Grace and peace to you from God our Father! “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” I Peter 3:15 We are delighted that you have answered the call to prepare yourself to be a chosen vessel of God in the last days to reach people around you with the love and truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Every type of training requires commitment, determination and discipline to study. As you prepare yourself in this type of service, prayer, consecration and growth in love towards God and others are unconditionally essential. The classes are taught with videos from professors from different backgrounds and places in the world who have given their lives to the work of reaching the Muslim people. As you go through each session, ask the Holy Spirit to speak to you about the love that Jesus has for the Muslims and how He desires for you to reflect that. This workbook was designed specifically for i2 Ministries course ‘Islam’s Issues, Agendas, and the Great Commission ’ so you can follow along with the videos and write down your personal notes, insights and specifically what God is impressing upon your heart. As you progress through this training, our prayer is that you would have experiences with God, think on the beauty of Jesus and His Kingdom, and increase your understanding and love for our Muslim friends around the world. And let us not forget the words of our Lord Jesus: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:35 “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” John 8:32 “I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. Matthew 5:44 “Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love.” 1 John 4:18 “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” John 14:21 Until the fame of Jesus fills the earth, i2 Ministries Training Team

ENDORSEMENTS "I don't know if there is a more strategic ministry involved in our world now than the ministry to reach the Muslims..." Ravi Zacharias   President, RZIM Ministries

"...the greatest and most practical vision for ministry to the Muslim world." Josh McDowell   Founder, Josh McDowell Ministry

"...I could not be more excited about this ministry and the needs it will address." Dr. JP Moreland   Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

I have enjoyed working with i2 Ministries. I hope that I will be able to work with them in the future." Dr. William Wagner   President, Olivet University International

"i2 Ministries is remarkably qualified to communicate effectively with the Muslim world in a way that very few other groups are taking initiative." Dr. Robert Coleman   Distinguished Senior Professor of Discipleship and Evangelism

"It is critical for a ministry like i2 Ministries to come alongside, motivate and equip the church for this challenge." Sudhakar Mondithoka   President of HITHA (Hydrabad Institute for Theology and Apologetics) and former President of RZIM India

"We were able to train many of our interns, leaders and pastors with the intensive i2 Ministries curriculum and heard rave reviews!" Pastor Francis Anfuso   Senior Pastor, Rock of Roseville Church, Roseville, CA India

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

ISLAM’S ISSUES, AGENDAS & THE GREAT COMMISSION Table of Contents VIDEO LESSON 1 - WHY CARE ABOUT MUSLIM

VIDEO LESSON 2 - HOW MUSLIMS COME TO CHRIST

READING - WHEN MUSLIMS ATTACK THE FAITH GET YOURSELF READY TO TALK TO MUSLIMS - DR. JOSHUA LINGEL VIDEO LESSON 3 - HOW ISLAM PLANS TO CHANGE THE WORLD READING - HOW ISLAM PLANS TO CHANGE THE WORLD - DR. WILLIAM WAGNER VIDEO LESSON 4 - INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM

READING - IS THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT BEEN HOPELESSLY CORRUPTED? - DR. DANIEL WALLACE VIDEO LESSON 5 - EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT RADICAL ISLAM READING - JIHAD, MARTYRDOM AND THE END OF THE WORLD - DR. DAVID COOK VIDEO LESSON 6 - JESUS IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

17 28

33 48

56 78

89 107

READING - JESUS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD - PROF. DAVID ABERNATHY

115

READING - WAS JESUS REALLY CRUCIFIED? - DR. DARRELL BOCK

133

VIDEO LESSON 7 - INSIDER MOVEMENTS READING - INSIDER MOVEMENTS MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION - PROFESSORS: JOSHUA LINGEL AND BILL NIKIDES

138

144

VIDEO LESSON 8 - COMPLETING THE GREAT COMMISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

154

READING - FACING THE MUSLIM CHALLENGE [BOOK] - DR. JOHN GILCHRIST Introduction - The Christian-Muslim Cutting- Edge Chapter 1 - The Integrity of the Bible Chapter 2 - the Doctrine of the Trinity Chapter 3 - Jesus the Son of the Living God Chapter 4 - The Crucifixion and the Atonement Chapter 5 - Muhammad in the Bible? Chapter 6 - The Gospel of Barnabas Bibliography

160 160 172 215 233 249 266 282 294

INDEX - JESUS VS. ALLAH WHO IS GOD? - DR. JAY SMITH

302

APPLICATION LESSON SHEETS

308

WITNESS REPORTS BASIC GUIDELINES

320

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !3

Joshua Lingel Bio: Joshua Lingel was called into Muslim Ministry at age 18 when God spoke to him to study everything he could about Islam and since train up the global church to target the Muslims in one generation. He has been involved in Muslim Evangelism for the last 26 years. Lingel attended six universities in Islamic Studies, including University of Washington, University of London, Harvard and Talbot School of Theology, in Muslim Ministry and Christian Theology, teaching at Biola University & Talbot School of Theology undergrad & graduate students in Christian Apologetics to Islam since 1999. He is married to Jussara Lingel and together they lead i2 Ministries. Joshua Lingel is the Founding President and visionary leader of i2 Ministries: Finishing the Great Commission Among Muslims. Currently, he is responsible for leading training in Muslim Ministry and Islamic Studies for a network of 27,000 churches and 18 million Christians in Asia, Africa and South America. Likewise, i2 Ministries offers training to networks of 250,000 students in over 200 countries. i2 Ministries main ministry is to strengthen â&#x20AC;&#x153;church-based trainingâ&#x20AC;? with their network of 35 professors courses developed and recorded over the past twelve years called: Mission Muslim World University. The goal is to provide each church and Christian the accessibility to all the training they need to finish the Great Commission among Muslims from voices of global Christianity, including global Christianity South. (www.i2ministries.org)

Please Contact him if you would like to partner or train your church(es) to reach Muslims: info@i2ministries.org

Mission Muslim World University Copyright i2 Ministries, Inc www.i2ministries.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or otherwise, without prior permission of i2 Ministries.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Islam’s Issues, Agendas, and the Great Commission Professor: Joshua Lingel, i2 Ministries Course Description The course book is designed to supplement i2 ministries video course #1 - Islam’s Issues, Agendas, and the Great Commission. If you would like to bring i2 ministries training to your group or church contact us at info@i2ministries.org. The aim of this course is to equip the Christian to effectively engage in evangelism with Muslims through a deeper understanding of the Islamic Worldview. Muslims often raise polemical questions about the Bible, the nature of Jesus, and the origins and development of Christianity. This course discusses a response to those critical questions while assessing the origins and early development of Islam. Subjects in this course also include “Why Care about Muslims,” “How Muslims come to Christ,” “Jesus in Islam and Christianity,” and “A Guide to Finishing the Great Commission.” Course Objectives At the completion of the class, the student will 1. To inculcate a desire to share Christ with Muslims. 2. To begin to understand the nature of Islam and it’s plans for the world. 3. To appreciate the necessity of apologetics and polemics for ministry to Muslims. 4. To begin to comprehend the differences between Islam and Christianity.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !5

VIDEO LESSON 1 - Why Care about Muslims? I. Introduction: A. i2 Ministries’ assignment is to train up the church to evangelize the Muslim world by video and live training. B. 1.57 billion Muslims C. One student’s trip to Yemen D. Second largest unreached religious group is Hindu (900 million), then Buddhist (364 million) E. Less than 1% of missionaries go to Muslims; 1 missionary per 420,000 Muslims F. Muslims are preparing themselves to reach the West. G. Have you memorized the NT? H. The Great Commission: what’s my role? I. 10/40 Window 1. Indonesian, 202 million Muslims 2. Pakistan, 174 million 3. India, 160 million 4. Bangladesh, 145 million J. Growth of Islam: 1908 (230 million) to 2011 (1.57 billion) K. Do you care about the things that God cares about? L. The Plan 1. Promise to a childless man 2. A child of Abraham’s old age 3. From Israel comes Messiah

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

4. 2 billion Christians, children of Abraham, today M. Jesus left us with the task of making worshipers of the nations II. The lives of four great men A. Jesus 1. Most radical missionary 2. Left heaven for earth: a greater divide than any between nations or peoples 3. Born into poverty, rejected and despised by his own people 4. Radical missionary recruiter: come follow me a. Consider Osama bin Laden b. Gave up great wealth for his beliefs 5. Jesus and the rich young ruler: unworthy of the kingdom. 6. Would you leave everything for the calling of Christ’s mission? 7. Jesus, the ultimate missionary, made the ultimate sacrifice a. Isaiah 53:5, “He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed.” b. Perfect human died for perfect cause: salvation c. Pick up your cross 8. Jesus has all authority: How can we not obey the ultimate authority? B. Paul 1. Member of Saul’s tribe, trained by Gamaliel, excellent student (Galatians 1:14) 2. Zealous for religious tradition; persecutor of the early Christians 3. Changed at his vision of Jesus; radicalized; Saul to Paul paradigm

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !7

4. Acts 20:24, “But I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my task and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God’s grace.” 5. Does that describe your life? 6. Paul was a Jew, but called to Macedonians, Greek philosophers and Stoics 7. Wasn’t he better equipped to reach his own people? 8. For you, reaching Muslims may be counterintuitive C. Raymond Lull 1. Born in Palma, Spain 1200 years after Paul 2. Intellectual and a scholar. 3. Appointed as an officer in the court of King James II of Aragon, and was also the most popular poet in Spain. 4. Vision of Jesus, 3 times! 5. “Raymond, follow me.” 6. This man had a real conversion experience. 7. Lull became the first recorded missionary to Muslims a. “To thee, Lord God, do I now offer myself and my wife and my children and all that I possess; and since I approach Thee humbly with this gift and sacrifice, may it please Thee to condescend to accept all what I give and offer up now for Thee, that I and my wife and my children may be Thy humble slaves.” b. To Lull this was not a commitment he was making on his own, it was a family covenant. 8. Missions was not easy for Lull a. 9 years learning Arabic b. Travelled in North Africa among aggressive Muslims

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

c. Samuel Zwemer, Lull used weapons of love and learning rather than sword of crusaders d. Raymond Lull was very bold in his love and faith, “Death…has no terrors whatever for a sincere servant of Christ who is laboring to bring souls to a knowledge of the truth.” e. In his last missionary journey Lull was 79 years old f. 1314 in Algeria, spent year discipling group of Muslims g. Died preaching the gospel in the open air h. It was not until another 500 years later that the next missionary to Muslims was sent D. Henry Martyn 1. Young man who wanted to marry 2. Translated Bible into Urdu, Arabic, and Farsi 3. Founder of church in Iran 4. Died at the age of 30 III. Conclusion A. What are the common denominators between Jesus, Paul, and Raymond Lull? 1. Gripped by God’s heart 2. Sacrificed all for the glories of God 3. Suffered for what they did B. Missions is a subcategory in Church 1. Foundation of ministry is missions 2. Great Commission is to be completed C. If Jesus had never come . . . D. If Paul had not gone . . .

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !9

E. If Raymond Lull had not obeyed . . . F. Either your life will count or you will have missed the greatest opportunity G. Leave a legacy

Application: Please go to page 308 and fill out the Video Lesson 1 Application sheet. Small Group Discussion: â&#x20AC;¨ a. Question 1: According to the Bible, why, as a disciple of Jesus, should you care about the evangelization of the Muslims? b. Question 2: What are the consequences of not caring about Muslims?

! 10

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

VIDEO LESSON 2 - How Muslims Come to Christ I. Introduction A. My assumptions about why you are watching B. What we will cover in this course C. Importance of understanding the Islamic worldview D. Apologetic and polemic 1. Islam claims to be a religion that comes from the God of the Bible, yet denies the truths of the Bible. 2. Polemics is disputing another worldview 3. Apologetics removes obstacles in the path of the listener E. 20k-30k conversions to Islam in four months after 9/11. France has seen 50k conversions to Islam. F. Do not avoid the hard issues when challenged G. Communicate passion and conviction H. A true Christian apologetic is your life I. 250k conversions to Christ in Iran J. 100k conversions in Algeria K. 13k in Pakistan II. The Reasons Muslims Come to Faith in Christ A. Political situations 1. Iran is a good example 2. Revolution of 1979, fundamentalist regime took over. B. Immigration

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !11

1. Muslims moving to Christian nations 2. Coming for jobs, education, freedoms 3. Missionaries are moving back in order to work with Muslims 4. Example: the Lebanese in Brazil C. Natural catastrophes 1. Compassionate Christian response to earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. 2. 2 Cor 3:2, â&#x20AC;&#x153;You are our letter written on our hearts known and read by all men.â&#x20AC;? III. Why Do Muslims Become Christians? A. Lifestyle of a Christian 1. Are you imitating Christ? 2. Is his presence real to you? Are you salt and light? 3. Do you share with passion and zeal by the Holy Spirit? B. Answered Prayer a. Muslims seek baraka, blessing b. Examples from Senegal, Pakistan 3. Dreams and visions a. Jesus Film Project: showing the Jesus film across the world b. In Afghanistan they had seen that man walking in their town 4. Muslims become dissatisfied with Islam a. Testimonies often describe their doubts due to the violence in Islam b. Historical accounts cause doubts

! 12

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

c. One Iranian woman gave this testimony: “For seven years the Zeinabiyeh dominated my life. Yet nothing changed. I tried so hard. I searched for peace within my religion but found none. Instead everything worsened, including my depression . . . an Iranian lady gave me a Bible. Once I began reading the Bible I couldn’t get enough of it . . . I knew Jesus was far more than . . . a prophet. I know the scriptures of the Qur’an. I’ve done all the things (Muslims) do. I’ve prayed all the prayers they pray. I did it all, but found no peace from Allah or from Islam. . . . I would love to tell all the people of Iran about the beautiful Jesus I have seen. I want to give my whole life to Christ.” c. “My own belief in Islam was severely tested by the empty formality and unconcealed hypocrisy I witnessed in virtually every aspect of [Islam’s] social and institutional life.” d. An Algerian woman was dissatisfied with Islam e. In Turkey, a woman leaves Islam because Muhammad had so many wives f. A Somalian believer: “I believed in the God of Muhammad. Then I began to doubt the credibility of Islam . . . Through [a friend] I discovered Christianity, and I began to compare the two religions. This man also gave me a Bible and I started to read it.” f. Afghani Muslim, “In this desperate and depressed state of mind, I began to read the Holy Injil [New Testament] to correct any possible defects in my investigations.”

5. The Bible a. Can you share the Gospel story from Genesis to Revelation? b. Muslims from every background say the Bible played a central role in their conversion 6. Apologetics, polemics and debate a. Apologetics can help remove the barriers to a Muslim seeking truth from the Bible b. Temple Gairdner: “All debate, or all dialogue should be done with the intent to save.”

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !13

c. One evangelist in West Africa has won many by confrontation d. Kosova, debating imams e. We debate only when it is effective. If God is giving dreams and vision, debate is probably not needed. f. Dr Miller, missionary to Iran, “In he past some very powerful books were written to demonstrate to Muslims the inadequacy of their faith.” Mizan al-Haqq (The Balance of Truth). g. Confronting with the truth hurts, but it is an important act of love. h. Paul in Athens, Acts 17 i. Much of the OT is a polemic against false gods/idols j. Polemics and apologetics not only bring Muslims to Christ, the protect missionaries from becoming Muslims! An example of a long time missionary becoming a Muslim. IV. Conclusion A. Become prepared to be the tool God will use. B. Pray with Muslims C. Do a Bible study with Muslims D. If challenged to do a debate, don’t shirk away. E. The answer to global Islam is the global Church

Application: Please go to page 309 and fill out the Video Lesson 2 Application sheet. Small Group Discussion: Analyze, in the groups previously formed in the class, the situations described in the following testimonies: "How would Jesus and the first disciples respond to each of these situations” (Fill out the chart below using biblical passages)

! 14

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

a. Testimony 1: I am a Muslim, but I have many doubts. I discovered that my religion has many problems, I feel empty when I participate in rituals, I get scared and I do not agree with violent acts. In fact, our own history has acts of violence. I read the Qur’anKoran, but ultimately, I think it has several contradictions. I read some parts of the Bible and, despite being told that it was corrupted, I found peace and comfort in this book. I am afraid that the Bible is the truth and that my faith in Islam is in vain. b. Testimony 2: I am a Muslim and practice the rituals of my religion, even without understanding them very well. My husband is a devout Muslim, a rigid, and sometimes, violent violent man, which that is his right, according to the Qur’an, , which says that Allah made men superior to women. I live in fear that he will divorce me. That's why I submit to him, because a divorced woman never gets rid of the shame in our society. I do not know what will happen to me after death, but I would give anything for Allah to accept me, even though I am a woman. c. Testimony 3: My daughter suffers from a serious health problem. I love her very much, and I have tried everything so that she can be cured, but no doctor or treatment served to free her from this evil. I pray to Allah every day for her healing. I fulfill my rituals and, on two occasions, I took her to a pilgrimage to Mecca, in order to have this favor from Allah, but all was in vain. The Imam advised me to read her some verses from the Qur’an, because, as he said, these verses have the power to heal. I have been doing this for two years doing this, but nothing happens. Finally, the Imam told me that this is the will of Allah for my daughter. I can´t understand this: if Allah is really powerful, why does my daughter continue to suffer so much? Why does not he answer my prayer? But, maybe the Imam is right. Allah is sovereign and all that happens is his will. As a Muslim, I know that I must submit to Allah, but I do not know what to do with this conflict.

Answer each question, identifying, in each situation, the need or opportunity, relating biblical text(s) with actions or principles recommended by the Scriptures,

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !15

and propose practical actions to resolve the problem as a form of witness to the Gospel.

IS THE SITUATION A NEED OR AN OPPORTUNITY OR BOTH?

WHAT IS A RELATED BIBLICAL PASSAGE ?

WHAT IS AN ACTION OR BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE?

PERSONAL PRACTICAL APPLICATION?

! 16

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

"When Muslims Attack ... the Faith" Get yourself ready to talk to Muslims" Joshua Lingel INTRODUCTION Devout Muslims attacked my faith when I was eighteen years of age. In rapid-fire succession I was shocked by these questions: “Your Bible is corrupted and your New Testament can’t be trusted. How Can God have a Son, Who was God’s wife? Jesus never died on the cross. Where in the Bible does Jesus ever say: “I am God, worship me?” How can God be three and one? Why does someone else have to die for your sins? Why can’t God just forgive you? The end of the gospel of Mark 16:9-20, 1 Jn 5:7-8 are missing in your early manuscripts. Islam is the straight path. Muhammad is the best of all men, final prophet for mankind. Every Qur’an is the same, not a letter, dot or vowel is different from East to West, a matchless miracle preserved by Allah. Islam is simple and not complicated, unlike all these contradictions of Christianity and a failed, immoral, western society it has produced.” I was challenged by these questions. I wanted to be ready. My attackers were pushing me back to my foundations—was what I believed actually true? I was put on the defensive by a seemingly endless list of questions and polemical attacks, while Islam was presented in glowing, idyllic terms. I was surprised at the intensity and level of the questions. They were TRAINED and equipped for this discussion, but I had no preparation. This is typical of so many interactions between Muslims and Christians. Since those days, I have extensively studied Islam at six universities. I’m not afraid of Islam but feel compassion for the Muslim people. We have taught thousands of Christian students and missionaries globally to confront Islam, and we’ve learned there are three main fears that debilitate Christians in these situations: 1. fear of persecution at the hands of Muslims; 2. not knowing enough about Christianity; and 3. not knowing enough about Islam. There are 4 steps you can take to be ready:

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !17

Step #1: Prepare for Spiritual Warfare Make no mistake, dealing with Islam puts us in the center of a fierce spiritual battle. The biggest demons in the world are in Islam holding captive more souls than any other religion, false god or ideology. Paul tells us “…the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought (idea) into captivity to the obedience of Christ". (2 Corinthians 10:4-5) Islam raises arguments and exalts itself against the knowledge of the true God. Our job as Christians is to war against Islam with spiritual weapons. These weapons are in the realm of love and learning, knowledge, ideas, thoughts and arguments. Make Jesus Lord of your life (1 Peter 3:15) and learn the answers to the questions Muslims ask.

Step #2: Don’t Fear Suffering The New Testament was written by suffering Christians, to suffering Christians, for suffering Christians. The Bible explains: “All who wish to live godly lives in Christ will suffer persecution.” (2 Tim 3:12) and “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (MT 10:28) And finally: “Perfect love drives out fear.” (1 Jn 4:18) On the other hand the Qur’an says: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” (Sura 8:12) Jesus prophesies about this: “In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God [Allah].” And again, Jesus said of the devil: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10:10) The good news: God has prepared for every believer involved a reward that “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived” (1 Cor 2:9). Therefore, don’t fear! Be more concerned about the witness you are giving to the Muslims, exalting Jesus, than about your own life! Otherwise, you will never be effective with Muslims, being more concerned with your comfort, and constantly measuring your safety rather than expanding His Kingdom. Do what Jesus told us to do.

Step #3: Learn the Foundations of Your Christian Faith How do people learn to recognize counterfeit money? By studying the real thing. In the same way, “Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15) Ask your pastor to have courses offered in your local church on the subjects of Islam and Christianity.1 There is no other way to learn about our faith than to study, study, study…sorry! 1

www.i2ministries.org, or contact us for more information: info@i2ministries.org

! 18

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

We must know God, and know his Son Jesus. In Christianity, the entire Bible is about God, making Himself known, and desires to be known by man in covenant relationship. The Bible is clear that God walked in the garden desiring to know Adam calling to him by name (Gen 3:8-9), led Israel as a cloud by day and fire by night (Ex. 13:21), spoke to Moses face to face (Ex. 33:11), came to the earth as the eternal Son of God incarnated in the man Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:1, 14), suffered and sacrificed out of love for us on the cross (Matthew 27:35, 50) and continues to lead His people by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8). God made continual covenants with men from Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and so on. In fact, the entire Bible is about God’s empowering presence among us. 2 God is knowable! Consider your own experiences with God. Is God not a God whom is knowable? Does not He speak to His disciples (Jn 10:27), lead them by His Spirit (Rm 8:14), bare fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25) and manifest His presence in signs that follow those who believe (Mk16:17, 1 Cor. 12, 14; Acts)? Millions of Christians experience this around the world every day. Be sure to share your testimony with Muslim’s you share the gospel with. In Islam it is simple blasphemy to speak about Allah as knowable in a personal relationship with man. In Islam, Allah is ‘unknowable’ (Sura 2:30-39; 7:19-25; 20:116-123, Bukhari 9:477: No one has seen Allah). Muhammad never met Allah, nor had Allah spoke directly to him, revelations reportedly came through an Angel (Gal 1:8) that contradicts the historical first century witness in the bible. This separates Christianity and Islam forever. Is God knowable? In Islam: Impossible! For Christians: ABSOLUTELY! Why perform all the religious acts when at the end of your religion, you don’t know your god (Allah)? We must know who Jesus really is (John 1:1, 14; 5:18; 8:24; 8:58;10:30-33; 20:28; Col 2:9; Phil 2:5-8; Heb 1:8; MT 4:10; 2:2; 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; 9:35-38; Heb 1:6; Is. 44:6; Rev. 1:17).3 Was Peter right when he said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (MT 16:16)? Consider the importance of this belief: “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12) “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains 2

Fee, Gordon D., God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. 3

Of note, extant manuscripts, p66 (Bodmer II), was thought to be written 125-150 A.D. containing John 1:1-6:11; 6:35b-7:53; 8:11-14:26,29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4; 16:5-7; 16:10-20:20; 20:22-23; 20:25-21:9; 21:12,17, 19:16.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !19

on him." (John 3:36) Jesus is called the “Son” or the “Son of God” 79 times in the first century New Testament.4 Jesus was crucified (MT 27:31-28:10; MK 15; LK 23:13-24:12; John 19-20). Salvation can be known (John 3:16). Salvation is by faith and not by works (Rom 3:21, 4:5; Gal 3:21) and is a free gift (Rom 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9). There is only one God (Deut 6:4; Is. 44:6, 8; 45:6, 14, 18, 21, 22). God is a Trinity of persons, revealed as Father (Phil 1:2), Son (John 1:1, 14; Col 2:9) and Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Jesus showed his disciples what it really means to be a human being in covenant relationship (MT 5-7). Or, should we wait 600 years after Jesus’ earthly life, believing one man Muhammad, to learn that Jesus is not the Son of God,5 that he was neither crucified nor killed,6 that God is not a Trinity,7 and that there is no salvation through Jesus?8 These are a few reasons why Christians consider Muhammad demonstratively a false Prophet (Is. 8:20, 1Thes. 5:21). Sura 4:171 of the Qur’an says “…say not, “Three”. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be it from His glory that He should have a son...” No historian would accept information coming 600 years after an event as more valid than what was written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses. All historians agree Matthew, Mark, Luke and the other New Testament witnesses are the earliest first century writings available for Jesus Christ! No historical Jesus scholar uses the Qur’an for information about the life of Jesus, because the Qur’an comes at least 632 years after the life of Jesus. The more you study the Scriptures, the more you will be anchored in the Truth.

Step #4: Deepen Your Study and Knowledge of Islam Study the early origins of Islam so you can counter the idyllic way Muslims present it. Is Islam actually the straight path, the simple, pure way in contrast to the contradictions of Christianity and a failed immoral western society? To answer that, here is its actual early history: In 622 AD Muhammad had a mere 100 Muslim converts to Islam when he migrated from Mecca to Medina and Allah, the Islamic god, instructed him to warfare in the way of Islam. By Muhammad’s death ten years later in 632 AD, Arabia was 4

Thanks to Miriam Casiano Alves for this detail.

S. 4:171. Jesus will come as a ruler, break the cross, kill the pigs and stop Jizya (Bukhari 3:656); Jesus will force people to convert to Islam (Bukhari 3:656); Jesus talked in a cradle (Bukhari 6:236); Jesus returns and kills Dajjal, fights Gog and Maggog Muslim 4:7015) Descends in Damascus (Muslim 4:7015); Go to hell for associating divinity to Jesus (Muslim 4:6733) 6

S. 4:157

S. 2: 4:171

Salvation through works, Sura 5:9, 42:26

! 20

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

entirely Muslim. The majority pagans, Jews, and Christians were killed, converted, or chased out of the hijaz (Western Arabia, Mecca & Medina).9 These were not defensive battles, as some Muslims present, but two-thirds of them were offensive battles plundering pagan tribes.10 The earliest surviving, recorded biographies of Muhammad record 86 battles11 led by the Muslim false-prophet and is replete with a history of killing,12 assassinations,13 beheadings,14 mutilations, 15 stealing,16 taking wives and concubines,17 lying,18 slavery, 19 torture,20 forced conversions21 and rape. 22 Indeed, nearly

Umar expelled the Christians and the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula (Bukhari 4:288, 4:380); and from the hijaz (Muslim 3: 3763); Aggressive War Against Christians, (Bukhari 5:560), Muhammad intended to kick out the Jews and Christians (Muslim 3:4366); May Allah Curse the Christians and Jews, (Bukhari 7:706); Christians are thrown into hell to make room for Muslims in paradise (Muslim 4:6665); Christians who reject Muhammad go to hell (Muslim 1:284); Christians are in hell because they worshipped Jesus (Muslim 1:352); 9

Thanks to Dr. David Cook, Rice University, for this comment and observation.

J.M.B. Jones, “The Chronology of the Maghazi—A Textual Survey,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19 (1957), pp. 245-80 (who details a total of 86). 12

Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad, (London; Oxford University Press, 1955, 2002), p. 303, 308, 310, 369, 407, 447, 464-466, 550-1, 554-5, 560-562 577, 589, 597, 618-620, 643, 647, 661, 665-6, 669, 674-6 13

Life of Muhammad, p. 316, 368, 482-3, 586, 666, 671-2, 673, 675, 676

Life of Muhammad, p. 303, 304, 464-466, 515, 545, 547, 550, 564, 574, 646, 649, 661, 671-2

Life of Muhammad, p. 322, 387, 588

Life of Muhammad, p. 281, 287-8, 307, 321, 490, 548-9, 561, 572, 576, 577, 584, 588, 590, 592-3, 643, 559-560, 671-672 17

Life of Muhammad, p. 99, 169, 309, 464-6, 490, 493-9, 511, 531, 593, 651, 653, 665

Life of Muhammad, p. 294, 367, 368-9, 458, 482-483, 519-520, 543,

Life of Muhammad, p. 144, 493-499, 551, 572, 576, 590, 648, 653,

Life of Muhammad, p. 515, 665, 674-5, 677-8

Life of Muhammad, p. 213, 241, 478, 587-8, 593, 598, 614-5, 618, 628, 629, 645-6, 669, 672, 676

Life of Muhammad, p. 490, 590, 594

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !21

75% percent of the 813-page “Life of Muhammad” covers the Muslim battles.23 Muslim armies killed one million Christians (Jews, pagans and Zoroastrians) in the first ten years of the Islamic Conquests.24 Within 100 years, 50% of global Christianity was under Islamic rule, including the Middle East, and Northern Africa.25 We are told commonly by Muslim Scholars, such as Maulana Maududi: “The Qur’an contains the word of Allah. In it is preserved the divine revelation, unalloyed by human interpolation of any kind, unaffected by any change or loss to the original."26 Later in the same work he writes, “The Qur’an - the book he gave to

Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad, (London; Oxford University Press, 1955, 2002): a translation of the work by Ibn Ishaq (d. 763) This is by far the most important body of material on Muhammad's life; it forms the basis of every biography written after that time. A slightly later rendition of Muhammad's life, that by al-Tabari (d. 923), is also available in English in the translation series The History of al-Tabari, published by the State University of New York Press: volume 6, Muhammad at Mecca; volume 7, The Foundation of the Community; volume 8, The Victory of Islam; volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat provides another source; the two volumes on Muhammad are translated into English: Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir: English translation, by S. Moinul Haq (1967, 1972) 24

Waqidi, al-. The Islamic Conquest of Syria. Translated by Mawlana Sulayman al-Kindi. London: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 2005. In the early period, if one rejects Islam, slaughter or enslavement awaits: “I ordered him [Khalid] not to fight anyone or to kill anyone until he has called him to the cause of God; so that those who respond to him and acknowledge [Him] and renounce [unbelief] and do good works, [my envoy] shall accept him and help him to [do right], but I have ordered him to fight those who deny [Him] for that reason. So he will not spare any one of them he can gain mastery over, [but may] burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive; nor shall he accept from anyone anything except Islam” (Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. 10, 57. Bold emphasis added.). Again, “Whoever does not respond to the cause of God shall be killed and fought wherever he may be and wherever he may have come to, as an enemy. [God] shall not accept from [such a] one anything that he may give, except Islam; but whoever responds to Him and acknowledges [Him], He shall accept [it] from him and instruct him. (The Muslim) should fight whoever denies [God]; so, if God lets him prevail over (the unbeliever), he should make slaughter among them by any means, with weapons and fire; then he should divide that which God bestowed as spoil upon him…” (AlTabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. 10, 59. Bold emphasis added.). 25

Ye’or, Bat. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude. London: Associated University Press, 1996. 26

Maulana Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi. Towards Understanding Islam (Markazi Maktaba Islami, 1993), 11.

! 22

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

mankind - exists in its original text, without a word, syllable nor even letter having been changed."27 Is this true? Let’s look at just one of those—the “missing vowel” and “dot”. Dr. Arthur Jeffery shows us thousands of textual variants from Islamic traditions between Qur’anic manuscripts in his book.28 Early Qur’anic manuscripts do not use many vowel points (dots) compared with the modern manuscripts, of which today’s Qur’an is based off of a 1924 text from Cairo! If these dots were added later, how is it they come down from Allah, preserved by matchless miracle? Other manuscripts show missing words, multiple word variances, and have entire chapters missing.29 Their holy book does not hold up to their own standards, yet they apply the same standard to our Bible.30

Ibid.

Jeffery, Arthur. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an. New York, AMS Press, 1975. (1937). Lingel, Joshua. “History of Qur’anic Textual Variants,” SOAS, University of London, Thesis Submitted to Dr. GR Hawting. 29

There are also a number of "facts" that need to be considered. One is that the earliest datable Qur’an verses are on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Of course, this only attests to part of the Qur’an. Another is that the earliest dated, complete Qur’an is dated to 394 A.H., that is the end of the fourth Islamic century (sometime during the eleventh century AD). Also, there are a number of manuscripts that have been only partially studied in Yemen and other places that attest to variants in early Qur’an codices. There are rock inscriptions from the Hijaz and southern Palestine that also appear to be variants on Qur’an verses. What does seem to be clear is that the "final" form of the Qur’an text took some time to develop, and it may be that some of the earliest extant Qur’an commentaries provide the earliest evidence for a canonical text of the Qur’an. 30

This page shows some of these typical variations, compared with the 1924 Cairo edition pasted in for comparison. All four of the highlighted words on this page show that today’s version includes alifs that are not in the words within this particular manuscript. Other manuscripts show missing words, multiple word variance, and chapters that are missing. See, Prof. Lingel, Joshua, Christian Apologetics to Islam, Mission Muslim World University: Session #11: Textual Criticism of the Qur’an. Church-based DVD training program: Course #2 of 35. www.i2ministries.org. Altikulac, Dr. Tayyar (ed.), Al-Mushaf al-Sharif, Attributed to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan, Istanbul: IRCICA, 2007. Such variants can be found in 2270 such examples comparing the Topkapi MS compared to the 1924 (1984) edition. The early manuscripts are filled with variations involving the long vowels, especially the alif. Also see: Mark, Brother, A ‘Perfect’ Qur’an, Privately published, 2000.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !23

" (image courtesy of Dr. Gerd-R Puin) Among the more interesting variants are several that come from the same page of an ancient Qur’an, one of which is a multi-word variant and the other is shown below:

" This example (above) shows a spot at which the scribe forgot to put the word “Allah” in the text. At some later point in time, most likely after the initial completion of the manuscript, that scribe or another came back and, having realized their error, corrected the verse by adding in the word, “Allah.”31 … and this one ends sura 67, skips 68-70, and goes directly to the start of 71

See Daniel Brubaker, “Asking Forgiveness Seventy Times”, 2010). Thanks to Dan Brubaker for permissions to use this variant.

! 24

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

" (photo courtesy of Gerd-R. Puin, used by permission) If there is even the smallest discrepancy between our biblical manuscripts they call them corrupted. “the claim of the Qur’an and Islam in general is ‘perfection and preservation by Divine decree.’ In a text which is only valid if it is preserved for all time, a multitude of divergences is unforgivable.” 32 As for the Biblical Manuscripts, we have a substantial, reliable text preserving the life, works and words of Jesus. The Challenge Today: Christian-Muslim Populations: In 1908, Dr. Samuel Zwemer underestimated the Muslim Challenge, saying that: “Islam would die out in 100 years” (under colonialism). At that time there were 230 million Muslims with only 28 missionaries working among them. One hundred years later, the Muslim population has multiplied seven times to 1.6 billion! 33 In 1980, just thirty years ago, there were only 800 million Muslims. That number has doubled in our lifetime. Today, the reality is that the total number of Muslims is twice that of born again Evangelicals (including Charismatic/Pentecostals) at 8-900 million. In nine years, Islam will surpass the total population of Evangelicals/Pentecostals and Catholics (1.1 billion) at over 2 billion. Islam will be the largest World religion on Earth. That is, unless the global church finally takes the Muslim challenge seriously and begins to resource transnational, global Church to disciple, train, and deploy to evangelize the Muslims! Where Do We Go? Where Are Muslims Located: Only 15% of Muslims speak Arabic or live in the Middle East (320 million). Today, Islam is predominately an Asian religion with one-billion Muslims in Asia! Countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are each 120-200 million 32

Brother Mark, A Perfect Qur’an, 168

Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life * Future of the Global Muslim Population, January 2011

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !25

Muslims. Muslims represent a majority population in 57 nations. There are 40 huge populations of Muslims minorities in majority Christian nations. Muslims are in every country of the world. 40% of unbelievers and non-Christians are Muslims. So the need is massive. Sadly, at present there is only 1 missionary for every 420,000 Muslims in the world. So why should we care About Muslims? …because God loves them. In the past 20 years 30 million Muslims have moved into the West. 6,000 Mosques have been built in Europe alone. $87 billion dollars has been provided by Saudi Arabia for their mission of Islamic Jihad and Islamization of the West. To put this in perspective: In Christianity, the Southern Baptist denomination in America sends the most missionaries throughout the world. According to Dr. William Wagner, the U.S. sends approximately 130,000 missionaries world-wide. What the Southern Baptists spend on missions per year – Saudi Arabia, spends in just three days for their Islamic Mission. Concluding Clarion Call: We Need Leadership, Resources, Training and Organization Muslims are doing a good job of attacking and reaching Christians. With 1.61 billion Muslims in 97 nations, you can be certain that the challenge of Islam is coming your way. Prepare yourself so you will be ready to hold out the Word of Life to Muslims who so desperately need the Savior. The biggest problem in the World is not Radical Islam, it is nominal Christianity! God is calling pastors to train their young and old to evangelize the Muslims. God is calling worship leaders to mobilize the hearts and minds of the people to study and evangelize the Muslims. We cannot wait another twenty years to get involved with the great commission among Muslims. The church (the people) has all of the resources (money, training, gifting, Spirit’s power, languages) to finish the Great Commission. It must happen now in our generation! Out sharing the gospel on Friday nights, a Saudi Muslim approached my evangelism partner, saying: "Do you remember me ‘Muhammad’. I became a Christian after the one night you shared the gospel with me." Out of the back of his pocket he proudly pulled out a baptism certificate from a local Baptist church. Muhammad said, "Thank you So much for sharing with me!" And he whispered, "And thank your friend with all the book knowledge." That was one year after I had shared the gospel with him.

! 26

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

The Challenge For You: Over the last 30 years, more Muslims came to Christ than in the past 1370 years of Islam combined. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims are becoming Christians today. What if the church were to finally train all their people, the Christians, all of them, and turn their resources to finish the great commission among Muslims today? Questions: 1. What are the three major fears Christians have when evangelizing Muslims? 2. Is Islam primarily an issue of apologetics? If not, explain 3. Are the Islamic traditions perfectly preserved? Why or why not? 4. The Qur'an is perfectly preserved in heaven according to Sura 85:21-22, with all manuscripts and traditions of manuscripts identical. Agree or disagree? 5. Muhammad was the perfect example for mankind, Muslims of the first generation were complete gentleman?

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !27

VIDEO LESSON 3 - How Islam Plans to Change the World

I. Introduction A. Hebrews 13:12-16 B. The passage teaches us to move toward the needs of the Kingdom rather than the comforts of life II. The biggest challenge facing the Church is Islam A. 1908, 230 million Muslims; 2011, 1.57 billion Muslims B. 900 million Muslims in Asia alone C. 15 percent of Muslims are Arabs or speak Arabic and only 3 percent of worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population speaks Arabic D. Muslims are majority in 57 nations E. 1 missionary for every 420,000 Muslims F. Jesus has a practical assignment for the church 1. He has decreed 2. Church is not a democracy 3. God reigns over the earth 4. If you are not obeying he King, you are not in the Kingdom. 5. Included in his will is the Great Commission G. We need to go outside the gate III. Making Muslims worshipers of God A. Either we go or support those who do go outside the gate B. We commission the very best people C. Ten take care of one

! 28

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

D. We need intercession, prayer, and prophet words. E. After three or four years we should be mature, led by the Spirit of God F. Every Christian should have experiences with God G. Acts 1:8 H. Islam is by nature an enemy of the Gospel: denies the Trinity, crucifixion, Jesus’ deity, atonement, and believes Bible is corrupted. 1. Every disciple should be able to answer these questions 2. Result of public witness is a suffering church in hostile areas 3. Trouble in Nigeria, but moving toward the Kingdom I. Islam is a state-building religion exporting Islamic revolution and da’wa II. Islam’s Plans to Change the World A. Already some Judeo-Christian nations are impacted B. There’s an advancing agenda to spread fundamentalist Islam 1. Jihadist Islamists and Quietist Islamists 2. Jihadist, one who sans to establish the Islamic state, khilafa. 3. Jihadists destroy 4. Quietists have the same goal, global Islamic state, but different means (destroying laws and institutions within a nation). 5. They favor Shari’a 6. Our greatest challenge comes from the Quietist Islamists C. The Church must meet the challenge 1. Islam has grown in the West a. 6000 mosques in Europe; 6000 Islamic non-profit orgs; $87 billion from Saudi Arabia; primary export of Saudi’s is Islam.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !29

b. 6 million Muslims have moved to France c. Germany has 3.7 million Muslims d. Spain donated land for a giant mosque funded by Saudis e. 1900 mosques in England (3000-5000 other Islamic centers); many conversions. f. Brazil has largest Lebanese population outside of Lebanon; Sao Paulo alone has 500,000 Muslims. 2. The factors for this growth a. Immigration; looking for freedom, peace, education and economic prosperity. b. Birth rate: higher among Muslims than Christians in the West c. Intermarriage: American women marrying Muslim men. d. Daâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;wa or evangelism: American Blacks converting i. 8000 conversions in NYC in one year ii. 15,000 conversions in Washington, D.C. iii. 50,000 American conversions vs. 20,000 Muslims to Christ conversions iv. 34,000 American conversions post 9/11 v. Public education and media as means for changing our view of Islam vi. American prison system 3. Signs of the growth a. Money from Saudi Arabia: $70-80 billion over next thirty years from Saudis. b. What is heard in the media is moderate Islam, making Islam palatable to Americans i. CAIR, Muslim civil liberties group

! 30

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

ii. Organization of Islamic Conference: Muslims must invest in media (alJazeera!) c. Universities i. Funding of Islamic chairs in Islamic Studies and Middle Eastern Studies ii. Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques, publication by Freedom House, Center for Religious Freedom (http:// www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf) iii. University of London iv. Harvard’s, “Defender of the Two Holy Mosques Chair” d. Changing the laws and institutions i. Hate crimes, England and Australia ii. Pastor Daniel Scot, arrested, tried, $750,000.00 iii. California hate crimes bill iv. Italy ruling against an author who criticized Islam v. Muslims are working toward institution of Shari’a vi. Government advisory boards, changing rules for public bathing, changing noise laws. Daniel Pipes, “Throughout the West, Muslims are making new and assertive demands and in some cases challenging the very premises of European and North American life.” e. Islam’s intransigence i. Offer full rights, but no special privileges ii. Islam must recreate the system in its own image iii. Muslim Brotherhood, Iqwaan and Muhajiroun of London, “take over the world” 4. The real problem: The Church a. We are not reaching out to our Muslim neighbors

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !31

b. We do not pray and evangelize c. We do not support and go d. The Church has laid dormant e. Result: England as an example i. Churches recycled into mosques ii. Islam fills the void we do not iii. Church must “pick up its mantle” f. Solution is not military g. Solution is confronting Islamic theology with the Gospel h. Tony Blair was wrong The greatest problem in the world is not radical Islam but nominal Christianity.

Application: Please go to page 310 and fill out the Video Lesson 3 Application sheet. Small Group Discussion: The author of the Letter to the Hebrews exhorts us to "Go to Him (Jesus) outside the camp, enduring the suffering that He endured." What is the meaning of this command, in practical terms, for you? ii. In verse 14, the author says "We don´t have a permanent city here, but we seek the one which is to come." How should this truth affect your life and the life of the global Church?

! 32

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

How Islam Plans to Change the World William Wagner William Wagner (ThD, University of South Africa; DMiss, Fuller Theological Seminary) is president of Olivet University International in San Francisco, California. He serves as the Second Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention and spent more than thirty years as a missionary with the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board. During that time, he was chairman of the Muslim Awareness Committee of the European Baptist Federation. In addition to teaching, he travels and speaks extensively in the Middle East and Europe, training missionaries for ministry to Muslims. William Wagner teaches course #20 in Mission Muslim World University called Islam’s Plans to Change the World

Introduction Most religions and movements have well planned strategies to assure success in their desire for growth. Islam is no different all though it is impossible to find one manual that outlines a well defined strategy that is used by all arms of Islam. In my many years of study of what they are doing I have been able to identify different prongs of their plan. In the beginning I isolated three prongs which were Da’wah, (Islamic Missions), Jihad (Holy War), and Mosques (Presence Missions). As I worked in trying to define these areas I discovered a fourth prong which has been successful in the expansion of their faith. It is immigration. The first edition of my book defined only the first three but the second edition also listed the forth prong. This chapter shall try to explain and define these four prongs. An important part of their movement is to break Da’wah down into three different sizes. One is Macro , the second is meta and the third is micro. In the first they look at society as a whole, in the second they see countries and states while in the third they are interested in individuals and smaller areas such as cities and towns. The reader will note that in their plans all three are given a place in their developing strategy. I should be noted that they are very strong in the first, Mega missions. In this part of Da’wah, they probably have the best developed plans of any of the major religion or movement in the world today. Don’t panic It was a normal summer day in Central Asia. Several of my colleagues and I were scheduled to take a flight from Alma Ata in Kazakhstan to Moscow. The airport was crowded, the smell was stifling, and confusion seemed to be the rule of the day.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !33

Our flight was supposed to take off at 8:00 a m , but, as usual, we were informed that it would be late. After waiting for eight hours and still not knowing when or if we would leave, we boarded the plane. It was packed not only with people but also with various packages and suitcases of many sizes and shapes. Most were piled in the aisles. As our plane rolled to the runway, we all felt that we had finally crossed the last hurdle. The Boeing 727 of Trans-Aero Airlines began its takeoff, but just before we rose into the air, there was a loud explosion under the wing. A tire blowout. The pilot tried to get the plane airborne, but ten seconds later there was a second explosion as the second tire on that same side also gave way. As the plane was shaking terribly and swerving to and fro on the runway, one person was heard to cry out, “Don’t panic! Don’t panic!” Those instructions seemed strange at a time like that. Only in frightening situations do people ever cry out, “Don’t panic!” Thankfully, the pilot was able to get the aircraft under control and bring it to a stop. We disembarked, only to have to wait for two more days in Alma Ata. After the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, many were heard to say, “Don’t panic! Don’t panic!” Many were asking themselves how these warlike events could be happening in a peaceful, advanced society like the United States. As leaders tried to understand the chemistry of what had taken place, it seemed that some unknown forces were at play that made life different from the way it was the day before. What were these forces that made the world sit up and take notice? Certain names and concepts now were on the lips of thinking people. Suddenly, average Americans were talking about Osama bin Laden, jihad, Muslim extremism, the Taliban, and so forth. New words and new ideas were now forming the basis of coffee table discussions. A new day had dawned. Muslim extremism was now recognized as a more powerful force than most had imagined. It seemed like only yesterday that Christians and Muslims stood shoulder to shoulder when the Berlin Wall came down. Both saw Marx’s brand of atheism as an enemy of monotheism, and both saw a brighter day ahead. Faith had won out over disbelief. Christians felt that their ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, and the separation of church and state were now the norm, but suddenly another force had raised its head—one that was in total opposition to their basic belief patterns. Many awoke to the fact that the attacks on that date were not an isolated occurrence but part of a well-planned and highly financed movement that has a desire to dominate the world. In the year 2000, bin Laden announced the formation of the World Islamic Front for the jihad against Jews and Crusaders (bin Laden’s term for Christians)—an umbrella group of radical movements across the Muslim world. He issued a fatwa stating that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens and their allies.

! 34

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Also, it has been publicized that Islam is the second largest and fastest growing religion in the world, at best estimates, numbering between 1.3 and 1.6 billion—about one-fifth of the population of the world. Many areas of the world have regional conflicts, such as Jews versus Palestinians, Hindus versus Muslims in Kashmir, and Russians versus Muslims in Chechnya. Are all of these related, or should they be seen only as separate occurrences in world history? After taking a closer look, it is apparent that there is a worldwide objective for world dominance by Islam. Understanding both the history and the dynamics of the plan might help us. A simple explanation for the problem is not possible since there are political, cultural, economical, sociological, and religious implications. One writer, John Esposito, has stated that, in light of 9/11, we in the West must ask three questions:

1. 2. 3.

Is there a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West? Why do they hate us? Is there a direct connection between Islam, anti-Americanism, and global terror?34

These questions, taken with the many facts before us, are reasons for concern. The growth of the Muslim population in the West and particularly in America has been both silent and alarming. Between 1989 and 1999, the Muslim population grew by more than 100 percent in Europe, to fourteen million (2 percent of the population), and in America by 25 percent. There are fifteen hundred mosques in Germany, and five million Muslims in France. The number of the followers of Muhammad in the rest of the European Union is between twelve and fifteen million.35 Many believe that Islam will be the second largest religion in America by 2015. The number of participants in American mosques has increased by more than 75 percent during the past five years and there are now more than twelve hundred mosques in the United States.36 Islam is definitely on the rise. From a worldwide perspective, it is also interesting to note that, according to a United Nations demographic report, Muslims will represent at least half of the global

34. John Esposito, Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 117. 35. Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s, 2002), 118. !36. Ihsan Bagby, Paul M. Perl, and Bryan T. Froehle, “The Mosque in America: A National Portrait” (April 26, 2001). This report is available online at http:// sun.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/The_Mosque_in_America_A_National_Portrait.pdf (accessed December 8, 2011)

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !35

birthrate after the year 2055.37 Islam’s rapid growth gives us new impetus to ask, What strategy is Islam employing to facilitate such growth? Islam’s basic strategy One school of thought, founded in 1953 by Sheik Taqiuddin an- Nabhani, states, “Muslims nowadays live in Dar-al-Kufr, the world of infidels.”38 To them this is intolerable, and “the only solution to the problem is for Muslims to reestablish the Khalifah, or Islamic State.”39 According to this school of thought, the Islamic state does not yet exist in the world since Khalifah implies one large Islamic state, ruled by a single leader (called a caliph), without national boundaries. Just as the founders of Communism felt that world conquest by Marxism was inevitable, so many Islamic scholars and politicians feel that the depravity of the West, coupled with the dynamism of Islam, sets the stage for a future worldwide Islamic state. One well-known strategist was Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. His overthrow of the well-established Shah has been studied by many as an example of how a religious revolution against a contemporary secular government can be accomplished. It was common knowledge in Iran that Khomeini had as his goal a five-stage plan. It was as follows: Step 1: The overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Iran. Step 2: Encouraging the creation of Islamic Republics in the surrounding Muslim countries either by revolution, war, or negotiations (thus the war against Iraq). Step 3: The defeat of Israel. Step 4: The Islamic takeover of Europe. Step 5: The fall of the Great Satan (United States of America) as the last step in the creation of a worldwide Islamic ummah. Khomeini was one of the more important influences in the Islamic strategy. Some have said that only the Wahabi Sunnis have taken a hard-line position, but Khomeini, a Shiite, was probably the ultimate revolutionary leader. President Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to Tehran reported that Ayatollah Khomeini was a “twentieth century !37. This statistic was taken from the work published by the Population Division of the United Nations in World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision, Highlights, released February 28, 2001. The report also shows that by 2050 Germany’s 82 million people will have fallen to 59 million and that Europe’s population of 728 million today will crash to 600 million. 38. Hizb-ut-Tahrir website quoted by Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us (New York: Free Press, 2002), 194. 39. Emerson, American Jihad, 194

! 36

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

saint.” It is said that Carter himself, being a religious man, felt that it would be possible to deal with him. History has clearly shown that this was a wrong assumption. As we look at Khomeini’s plans for world dominance, it is interesting to see what he thought of the West: Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says, “Kill all the Unbelievers” just as they would kill you. Islam says, “Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.” Islam says, “Kill in the service of Allah.” Whatever good there exists is thanks to the sword, and the shadow of the sword. People cannot be made obedient except by the sword. The sword is the key of Paradise, which can only be opened for Holy Warriors.40 It is no wonder that large numbers of Muslims claim to be international revolutionaries. They form an important part of the Muslim global strategy. In the past few years, various strategies have been proposed by either Muslim clerics or organizations. Some go so far as even listing which of America’s fifty states will be the first to become Islamic. On one list Michigan was given this honor. It is not so foolish as one might think, since one well-known Christian demographer, Jim Slack, the director of research for the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, stated that in the year 2000 more than 50 percent of the population of Detroit proper was Islamic or of Islamic background. He also mentioned that Washington, D.C., and London, England, were not far behind. 41 A news report from Voice of America stated, “Dearborn, Michigan, is said to have the largest population of Muslims of any American community. Other cities with large Muslim populations are New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.”42 When we look at the military scene, we are appalled. Among the nine largest purchases of arms in the world since 1983, four were by Arab states: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Egypt.43 Most of the Arab states have twice as many of their people in

40. Ronald de Valderanos, “Terror: The War Against the West,” Imprimis, November 1988, Hillsdale College, http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp? year=1988&month=11 (accessed September 8, 2011). 41. Dr. James Slack, interview by author, Mill Valley, CA, August 14, 2002. 42. Jerilyn Watson, “Muslims in America,” This Is America, aired on Voice of America, December 17, 2001, posted online at http://www.manythings.org/voa/usa/72.html (accessed September 8, 2011). 43. Fatema Mernissi, Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World, trans. Mary Jo Lakeland (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002), 44.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !37

military service as Western countries have in theirs. The so called Arab Spring has made the Western World aware of the possible danger of Muslim extremists taking over countries such as Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. On television, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, has stated that the day would come when the West must fight against the Arab world. If it is now, it will be easier, but if we wait, it will be much more difficult since they are gaining military strength every day. Weapons of mass destruction are not far away for several Muslim states. Some have said that 15 percent of all Muslims are sympathizers of extreme Islam. How many Muslims in America would fit into this category? What would happen if hundreds of thousands of soldiers from a foreign power invaded the United States? A great alarm would be sounded. Americans would be called upon to fight and defend the flag, our country, and our way of life. Yet, many Muslims in America are now politically sympathetic with the goals of the al Qaeda movement—yet we do almost nothing. The Arab World League has established the date of 2080 as the deadline for complete Muslim dominance of the world. Certain leaders in Islam have created a very effective strategy to achieve this goal. The four prongs of this strategy have been established by the author as: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Da’wah, or missions Jihad, or Holy War The building of mosques Immigration

Da’wah – Islam’s mission strategy Da’wah (or dawa or daawah) is one of those words that has several valid meanings. Jane I. Smith, professor of Islamic Studies at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, in her book Islam in America, gives three perspectives on Da’wah for various practitioners: For some, da‘wa means the active business of the propagation of Islam with the end of making conversions. . . . For others, da'wa involves the effort to bring those who have fallen away from Islam back to active involvement in the faith.... And for still others, da'wa means the responsibility to simply live quiet lives of Muslim piety and charity, with the hope that by example they can encourage wayward coreligionists as well as others that Islam is the right and appropriate path to God.44 Dr. Ghassan Khalif, president of the Arab Baptist Seminary in Beirut, Lebanon, said,

44. Jane I. Smith, Islam in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999, 160.

! 38

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

“The two words ad-da’wah mean the invitation, the calling, and/or the vocation.”45 The verb form of Da’wah is the often used word Dah’u, which means to invite or to call.46 Others have given the meaning “come” to the word. Da’wah is the extending of an invitation to come into a close fellowship with Allah through Islam. Another important word is daa’i, which is the nearest Islamic equivalent of the Christian missionary or mission worker. Daa’i could be defined as a preacher or a worker for Islam. Since every Muslim is to be a witness to Islam, each member of the faith should be a daa’i. This, however, has taken on another significance and is used for those who have felt a definite call to be involved in the work of spreading Islam. A daa’i has six different responsibilities. They are: 1.. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

To oneself To one’s family To one’s neighbors To one’s fellow citizens To one’s countrymen To one’s fellow human beings47

Today in the West Da’wah is effectively used in the academic world and in prisons as aggressive evangelism. But at the same time in a quiet but effective way, Islam is gaining both respect and converts. It is not jihad that will be successful in the West but rather Da’wah. The importance of Da’wah has been stated well by Khurram Murad: Da’wah among non-Muslims cannot, and should not, be treated as an isolated phenomenon. We will not undertake it properly unless we recognize its proper place at the center of the Islamic life that we as Muslims must live. We will not devote our energies to it as we ought to unless it forms an integral part of our total endeavor and struggle.... Da’wah among non-Muslims must not be merely an appendage attached to our Islamic existence. 48

! . Dr. Ghassan Khalif, interview by author, Spain, July 3, 2002. 45 ! . Ibid 46 47. Jamal Badawi, Islamic Da’wah in the West, video of lecture delivered at the 24th Annual Conference of the UK Islamic Mission in London, August 1987, produced and directed by Anwar Cara (London: Islamic Foundation, 1988). 48. Khurram Murad, Da’wah AmongNon-Muslims in the West, http:// www.islamicstudies.info/literature/dawah/dawah.php (accessed online September 6,2012).

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !39

Islam sees Da’wah as an important and useful tool in their search f o r world dominance. It is not right for Christians to condemn what Is done through Da’wah, but it will be helpful to understand the dynamics of Da’wah as we seek to reach Muslims with the message of Jesus Christ. Jihad – the holy war While Christians see jihad as meaning holy war, Muslims generally want to have a much broader interpretation of the word. What does jihad really mean? What significance does jihad play in the life of a Muslim? This is a complex question about a complex word. Most people from the non-Islamic world consider jihad an excuse for terrorist behavior from an extremely volatile part of the world—the Middle East. The term jihad has, as its root meaning, “struggle” or “striving.” The Muslim Almanac defines jihad as “striving.” This is a Quranic concept that encompasses the idea of a just war as well as other forms of striving by which individuals or the community extends the practice of Islam and safety for Muslims. 49 In Islamic textbooks the concept of jihad is often mentioned as the sixth pillar of Islam. The reason for this is that all the other pillars—prayer, giving of alms, fasting, faith, and the pilgrimage— are considered struggles in one’s attempt to walk the path to God. For a Muslim, jihad is a system of related ideas to help in the struggle against all forms of temptations and difficulties that one must face as he attempts to live for Allah. This struggle can be both spiritual and military. It is written that Muhammad, upon having returned from fighting a battle with some of his enemies, said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.” When the people heard him, they said, “O Messenger of God, what jihad could be greater than struggling against unbelievers with the sword?” He replied, “Struggling against the enemy in your own breast. ” 50 Thus, Muslims define this greater jihad as a warfare against sin and all that is against Allah and his teachings. It is the struggle in one’s own heart to follow the will of Allah and is an internal battle for righteousness. The lesser jihad is what we know as the traditional holy war that is declared in the name of Allah and is used to spread his will. While all Muslims must undertake the greater jihad, not all are required to participate in the lesser jihad, but they must support it when it does occur. Many Muslim teachers state that a lesser jihad is allowed in only two circumstances. The first is in defense. Jihad, according to Muslims, is never an offensive war but only a defensive war. Only after the Muslims have been attacked in some way are they 49. Azim A. Nanji, ed., The Muslim Almanac (Detroit: Gale Research, 1996), 499. 50. Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick, The Vision of Islam (New York: Paragon, 1994), 21.

! 40

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

permitted to fight back, or if in some way their freedom, peace, or justice has been taken away. Some of this takes place only in theory and not in actuality. Muslims claim that jihad is to be implemented as a last resort, only under extraordinary circumstances. Aggression from either side is not to be tolerated. Yet a study of history shows this is not the case. Muslims have engaged in many wars with aggression as the root cause, often so they can gain territory or wealth. Today, Muslims will often state that the violence they are committing is in retaliation for what was originally done to Islam. If there is no recent reason, they will cite the need to defend Islam against the imperialistic designs of the West. Often the person issuing the call for jihad will list the Crusades as a reason for attacking Christians. In one fatwa, Osama bin Laden mentioned that the West had robbed the Arab people of its oil; thus, the West needed to pay every Muslim in the world $30,000. If this was not paid, then there was justification for jihad.51 The second reason for the lesser jihad is “to right a wrong.” Some say that this is also a Christian argument for a just war. An example is the Gulf War of 1991, when the allies fought to repel the invasion of Iraq into Kuwait. History has shown that in many cases Christian countries could call a war just if it fit into their plans; thus the second reason given for lesser jihad does have an equal in Christian countries. Rollin Armour, professor emeritus at Mercer University, gives an example of Islam’s second reason for jihad when he writes: “The expansion of Islam in the seventh century would also be an example of righting a wrong, the idea being that it was wrong for the Middle East and North Africa not to be exposed directly to Islam and ruled by Islamic Law.”52 With this line of reasoning, lesser jihad could be used in all parts of the world in order to usher in a utopian society under Sharia law. Precisely this argument is used by many of the more extreme Muslims in the world. Muslims explain that jihad is implemented to proclaim the religion of Islam to all the nations. It was their desire to spread Islam to all the peoples who surrounded them, to take them out of a state of “ignorance” of Allah and into a state of following his will. We cannot be sure whether people converted out of a true change of heart, fear of death, or the desire to not have to pay the tax that would be imposed on non-Muslims. It may

!51. Donna Abu-Nasr, “Bin Ladin’s World Revisited,” posted online at http://www.lats.com/ rights/register.htm (accessed online December 28, 2011). This quote came from an undated press release. The dateline was Damascus. The author quoted from the book Bin Ladin, AlJezeera, and I, by Jamal Abdul Latif Ismail. The book, which at the time is only in Arabic, includes a fifty-four-page transcript of the complete 1998 interview that was broadcast in abbreviated form on Al- Jezeera, a popular Islamic television program. The book was sold out in the Middle East. 52. Rollin Armour Sr., Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002), 31.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !41

have been a mixture of all these reasons, but we know historically that Islam has often spread by means of jihad. A large number of Muslims in the world today see jihad as not only permissible but as necessary. In order to create a worldwide ummah, Islamic community. Jihad is thus an essential part of the Islamic faith. However some Muslims feel that jihad, as practiced by the extremists actually violates Quran as practiced by some moderate Muslims. Christians must understand that the explanation of jihad as only an inner struggle is no longer valid. Christians must take into account that the violent form of jihad is very much alive. Jihad forms an important part of Islam’s search for world dominance. Mosque – If you build it, they will come A well known statement says “Man molds the buildings and buildings mold the man” this is very true in Islam. The mosque has an important part in the expansion of Islam. A well known strategy in Christian missions is the presence strategy. It says that a missionary needs to create a presence in a new area and then expands from there. A part of this presence concept is the building of a physical presence. The Muslims have taken this strategy to new heights. They are now building new Mosques all over the world and are using oil money from the Middle East to achieve their goals. A Time magazine article quoted an article in Ain al-Yaeen, an official Saudi magazine that “the royal family wholly or partly funded some 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges and 2,000 schools in countries without Muslim minorities ”.53 As I travel around the world I see in almost every country I visit new Mosques being constructed or I learn of them being planned. Germany now has over 1,500 mosques with new ones going up in all major cities. This is true all over Europe.   I was told that in Nigeria that there is a freeway going from the North to the South and that the Muslims are building a mosque every mile as a symbol of the advance from the majority north to the Christian South. In telling this story to some in Kenya, I was told that they are doing the same thing in Eastern Africa. In the West the building of so many Mosques has raised some opposition but the argument is always that since we practice freedom of religion we have to allow new mosques to be built. Thus we should allow as many new mosques as are needed by the Muslims. It is interesting to note that it is forbidden for any new churches to be built or even renovated in Muslim countries.

53. Lisa Beyer, “Saudi Arabia: Inside the Kingdom,” Time, September 15, 2003,50; http:// www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005663,00.html.

! 42

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

In summary, several observations can be made:

1. Muslims, as a part of their strategy they are building- large numbers of Mosques 2. 3. 4. 5.

in most countries of the non Muslim world. They are building mosques even before they have a large number of believers in that area. The mosque in Islam is more than just a building; it is the center of community and has many uses. The physical presence represented by the mosque is very important to those who are planning the strategies for Islam’s growth. Large amounts of money are being invested into the building of mosques, not only in Muslim countries but also in Western areas.

Immigration – changing demographics Immigration has always been a part of Western life. Between 1821 and 1924, about fifty-five million Europeans migrated overseas with thirty-four million coming to the United States.54 Persons living in the West began to create very definite political Ideas, especially during the Cold War period. But when it came to Immigration, most were ambivalent. Their roots supported what was happening; at the same time the numbers of new people living in their country was a concern. Eventually a spirit of hospitality and Openness of the Western Christians won out and there was practically an open door for all to come. In fact, some countries—Germany and Switzerland among them— encouraged immigration because of their labor shortages. By the 1980s there seemed to be a shift away from this open attitude. There were several reasons for this change. One was the growing unemployment rate. This, combined with the overwhelmingly "non-European” character of many refugees, created new tensions between the new and old inhabitants of various countries. Also by this time there was an emphasis in the Muslim community to cease their philosophy of integration and to embrace one of separation. Instead of helping their cause in the West, this hurt it. Muslim immigration was the most important part of the European migration scene. “By the early 1990s two-thirds of the migrants in Europe were Muslim, and European concern with immigration is above all concern with Muslim immigration. The challenge is demographic migrants account for 10 percent of the births in Western Europe, while Arabs account for almost 50 percent of the population in [the capital of Europe,]

54. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996; paperback edition, 198

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !43

Brussels.”55 As stated elsewhere, the United Nations has reported that with the current rate of growth, 50 percent of all young people under the age of twenty-one in the world will be Muslim by 2050. This exponential growth threatens the well-being of Europe. Despite the concern shown by their people, most political rulers did not take strong stands against the new movement of peoples. The leaders in England, Germany, and France in particular realized that the Muslims in their countries presented an everincreasing potential bloc of voters. Not wanting to alienate a large bloc of voters, they only granted lip service opposition to what was happening. In France, the Prime Minister did approve a ban on girls wearing the traditional Muslim garb in schools, but the intimidation tactics of the Muslims proved to be so successful that most politicians backed down. One of those who stood up to the intimidation of the growing power of the new immigrants was an investigative reporter in Germany—Udo Ulfkotte. He wrote several best-selling books about the dangers of Islam in Europe. The first book, The War in Our Cities, earned him a reputation among the Muslims. For a short period of time there was an injunction on the sale of the book in Germany but it was then lifted. However, soon after the book appeared, the Internet was full of fatwas that put a price of fifty thousand euros on his life. The pronouncement stipulated that anyone who killed h i m could collect this amount. This was not the end of the intimidation. Soon a younger German lady claiming to be Doris Ulfkotte, the wife of Udo, appeared on YouTube and then proceeded to run down the Turks, Muhammad, and the Qur’an. This so infuriated the Turkish community that they also placed a bounty equivalent to fifty thousand euros on her life. It did not seem to matter that the lady in the YouTube video was, in fact, not Doris Ulfkotte. Udo has stated t h a t both he and his wife live a life of exile in their own country. As th e immigrants grow in numbers, their ability to intimidate grows with it. Another European who has taken a stand against the growing p o w e r of Islam in Europe is the Dutch politician Geert Wilders who Is a Dutch member of parliament. He has strongly spoken against the growing influence of Muslims in Europe. His reputation has grown to the point that the government of England forbade him to enter the C o u n t r y. He had broken no laws but he is so vocal on his criticism toward fundamentalist Islam that European politicians fear the Muslim backlash his visit would bring. Wilders’s message is very simple: Europe is in danger of losing its identity. He quotes such statistics as:

1. There are thousands of mosques throughout Europe. Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim—just take Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Marseille in France, and Malmo in Sweden. ! . Ibid., 200. 55

! 44

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

2. In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. 3. A total of 54 million Muslims now live in Europe. 4. In the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population identifies the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II.56 The best that can be done is to show that immigration is every bit as much a danger for the West as Da’wah, jihad, and the building of mosques. Only, a few examples of Islam’s use of migration to assume control of areas of Europe have been provided; I personally have researched the situation in the city of Cologne and in Denmark. The question of immigration is one of the more pressing problems in the American political scene today, as well as that of most European countries. Understanding the problem is halfway to solving it. Immigration must be seen as only one part of their overall strategy. Let us all continue to work on the problems in the hopes that valid solutions can be found to allow all to live peacefully on planet earth. Conclusion A book written about fifty years ago about Mormon strategy was called “Hidden in Plain Sight” The title reflected the fact that few knew what the Mormons were doing but anyone who truly looked at their accomplishments could understand perfectly well what they were doing. The same is with Islam’s” attempt to take over the World. Although I never found the four prongs of their strategy named as a part of their strategy, it is apparent that they place great emphasis on Da”wah, Jihad, the building of Mosques, and Emigration as essential aspects of their plans. In using these four emphases they have developed a very effective plan for world conquest. If they are so effective, the question must be asked – Will they be successful in making the whole world Muslim by 2080. Most reasonable observers would have to say that there is a real possibility that they will succeed. But the main force that they now must deal with is Christianity. One Muslim cleric told me that before 1990 Islam’s greatest foe was communism while now their greatest foe is Christian Missions. The three major players in today’s battle to control society are Islam, Secularism, and Christianity. Our greatest fear should not be the rise of Islam but rather the weakness of Christianity to respond with the mighty power that it possesses. As stated in the Bible: “Greater is He that is within us than he that is in the World”.

!56. Speech given by Geert Wilders at the Hudson Institute, September 25, 2008. Transcript in the hands of the author.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !45

Questions: 1. In your own words explain from a muslim perspective how the Islamic global Khalifah is supposed to be established. 2. What is the similarities and differences between Christian evangelism and Muslim Da’wah? 3. What do you think are the similarities and differences between the Islamic global Khalifah and the Christian Kingdom of God. 4. Formulate 3 questions that would be helpful to ask a Muslim about when and how the Muslim Khalifah will emerge. Formulate 3 rebuttals concerning this Khalifah using the return of Jesus and the Kingdom of God and the Churches role as we wait for Christ’s return.

NOTES 1. John Esposito, Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 117. 2. Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s, 2002), 118. 3. Ihsan Bagby, Paul M. Perl, and Bryan T. Froehle, “The Mosque in America: A National Portrait” (April 26, 2001). This report is available online at http://sun.cair.com/Portals/ 0/pdf/The_Mosque_in_America_A_National_Portrait.pdf (accessed December 8, 2011) 4. This statistic was taken from the work published by the Population Division of the United Nations in World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision, Highlights, released February 28, 2001. The report also shows that by 2050 Germany’s 82 million people will have fallen to 59 million and that Europe’s population of 728 million today will crash to 600 million. 5. Hizb-ut-Tahrir website quoted by Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us (New York: Free Press, 2002), 194. 6. Emerson, American Jihad, 194 7. Ronald de Valderanos, “Terror: The War Against the West,” Imprimis, November 1988, Hillsdale College, http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp? year=1988&month=11 (accessed September 8, 2011). 8. Dr. James Slack, interview by author, Mill Valley, CA, August 14, 2002. 9. Jerilyn Watson, “Muslims in America,” This Is America, aired on Voice of America, December 17, 2001, posted online at http://www.manythings.org/voa/usa/72.html (accessed September 8, 2011). 10. Fatema Mernissi, Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World, trans. Mary Jo Lakeland (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002), 44. 11. Jane I. Smith, Islam in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999, 160. 12 . Dr. Ghassan Khalif, interview by author, Spain, July 3, 2002.

! 46

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

13 . Ibid 14. Jamal Badawi, Islamic Da’wah in the West, video of lecture delivered at the 24th Annual Conference of the UK Islamic Mission in London, August 1987, produced and directed by Anwar Cara (London: Islamic Foundation, 1988). 15. Khurram Murad, Da’wah AmongNon-Muslims in the West, http:// www.islamicstudies.info/literature/dawah/dawah.php (accessed online September 6,2012). 16. Azim A. Nanji, ed., The Muslim Almanac (Detroit: Gale Research, 1996), 499. 17. Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick, The Vision of Islam (New York: Paragon, 1994), 21. 18. Donna Abu-Nasr, “Bin Ladin’s World Revisited,” posted online at http://www.lats.com/ rights/register.htm (accessed online December 28, 2011). This quote came from an undated press release. The dateline was Damascus. The author quoted from the book Bin Ladin, AlJezeera, and I, by Jamal Abdul Latif Ismail. The book, which at the time is only in Arabic, includes a fifty-four-page transcript of the complete 1998 interview that was broadcast in abbreviated form on Al- Jezeera, a popular Islamic television program. The book was sold out in the Middle East. 19. Rollin Armour Sr., Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002), 31. 20. Lisa Beyer, “Saudi Arabia: Inside the Kingdom,” Time, September 15, 2003,50; http:// www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005663,00.html. 21. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996; paperback edition, 198 22. Ibid., 200. 23. Speech given by Geert Wilders at the Hudson Institute, September 25, 2008. Transcript in the hands of the author.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !47

VIDEO LESSON 4 - Introduction to Islam I. Introduction: Islam 101 A. We will look at some of the simple expressions real Muslim belief B. This applies to Sunnis (85 percent of Muslims) and Shi’a (15%) C. We will focus on the points of tension between Christianity and Islam D. Why is it important to learn about Islam? 1. Muslims are the largest unreached group (1.5 billion) 2. Live in the 10/40 Window 3. The real reason: Matthew 28:18-19 reads “Go therefore, making disciples of the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit teaching them all I have commanded you to do.” 4. In the next 24 hours, 37,000 Muslims will die without Christ II. Muhammad and the revelation of the Qur’an A. Islam begins with an Arab who lived 600 years after Jesus B. Muhammad, the final prophet and example for all Muslims (and all mankind) C. Early life 1. Born in AD 570, raised as orphan by uncle 2. Became a tradesmen to Syria for a wealthy widow named Khadijah, married her when he was 25 and she 40 3. Spent one month yearly on Mt Hira, pagan custom of jahiliyya, the period of darkness or “the pre-Islamic era.” 4. AD 610, Muhammad as visions in the cave; Gabriel says, “Iqra!”

! 48

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

a. Gabriel becomes the channel of communication between Allah and Muhammad b. Revelation came in fragments, later to become the Qur’an c. Written on stone tablets in heaven: Q85:21-2; Q43. This is the kitabullah, the book of Allah and is eternal. D. Prophet 1. During revelation, he had protracted periods and fits of rage 2. Imam Malik, “’How does this revelation come to you?’ and the messenger of Allah said, ‘Sometimes it comes to me like the ringing of a bell, and that is the hardest for me, and when it leaves me I remember what has been said. And sometimes the angel appears to me in the likeness of a man and talks to me and I remember what he says.’” 3. `A’isha confirms the sweat on his brow 4. Initially disturbed by the experienced, he went to his wife; she comforted him 5. Was Muhammad epileptic? Demonized? 6. Revelations came for 23 years, yet he was illiterate a. He was a tradesman; how could he be illiterate? b. Muslims want Muhammad to be illiterate to make the Qur’an miraculous 7. AD 610, at the age of 40, Muhammad became a “prophet.” 8. Early on, his teachings were one of peace and unity between the different groups 9. AD 622, loses support and many angered by his message against paganism 10. He temporarily gives into the pressure, allowing polytheism, then backs off, bringing hostile clashes.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !49

11. Move to Medina a. Muhammad becomes violent b. Beginning of ummah c. Growing political power, fighting those who were against the influence of Muhammad 12. His last nine years a. Participated in 27 campaigns and planned approximately 64-84 others. b. Mass executions, rapes and forced conversions took place during some of the campaigns c. In AD 632 he died of illness leaving 11 widows and 4 daughters 13. Biography of Muhammad, Sirat Rasullah, Alfred Guillaume (Oxford Press); most authoritative of the more than 1000 biographies. III. Mormonism and Islam A. After hearing a little about the life of Muhammad you may be able to draw an interesting comparison between Mormonism and Islam B. Both Joseph Smith and Muhammad go to mountains to pray C. Both are looking into a cave D. Both have angels show up E. They both inquire of the angel and ask which religion is right F. The response of the angels is â&#x20AC;&#x153;I will reveal it to youâ&#x20AC;? G. Muhammad and Joseph Smith both end up as polygamists H. Both end up with religions that became rather violent

! 50

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

I. And finally Muhammad and Joseph Smith end up as heads of a cultic following V. Qur’an A. Collection of the revelations is problematic B. Muhammad was supposedly illiterate; his followers memorized the revelations C. They would write them on bones, stones and leaves D. They were never written down in a book during his lifetime E. After his death, Abu Bakr, said Qur’an should be written F. First copy of Qur’an is in AD 634 G. But we know there were several codices; in fact, 15! 1. See Sir Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ân 2. 15,000 variances between the codices H. Uthman (AD 644-656 as caliph) made one official copy and burned the rest; left us the Uthmanic recension I. Not all of the Qur’an was preserved: “Many of the passages of the Qurans that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known by those who survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Quran, nor were they found with even one person after them” (Dawud). J. Muslim claim: Qur’an is unchanged, but al Suyuti writes, “It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim . . . ‘Let none of you say, “I have acquired the whole of the Quran.” How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared? Rather let him say, “I have acquired what has survived”’” K. See Jeffery, John Burton, The Collection of the Qur’an, (Cambridge Press) V. The 5 articles of Faith

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !51

A. Belief in Allah as the one true god 1. Allah’s character is quite different than the God of the Bible 2. Transcendent; no personal relationship 3. He is just, but capricious 4. Muslims are unsure of reward or punishment 5. God is love? B. The belief in angels as the instruments of God’s will 1. Good angel and bad angel on each shoulder judging one’s works 2. There is no demonology or fallen angels; jinn (good or evil); but I’ve never met a Muslim who speaks of good jinn. C. Belief in four inspired books: the Torah (law of Moses), the Zabur (the Psalms), the Injil (Gospel), and the Qur’an. 1. Different notion of inspiration 2. Lost Gospel of Jesus? The books of Moses and of David are also lost. 3. Qur’an is final revelation D. Prophets of Allah (28 mentioned in the Qur’an) 1. Muhammad is the last 2. Jesus is a prophet: ruhullah, kalimatullah, but only a predecessor of Muhammad E. Day of Judgment 1. Later discussion 2. Mahdi comes and khilafa established

! 52

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

VI. The 6 Pillars of Islam A. Shahada, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger” 1. True faith of the heart is not the issue 2. Recitation of shahada makes one Muslim B. Daily prayers (salat) 1. Upon rising in the morning, at noon, mid-afternoon and before retiring Muslims recite prescribed prayers while facing in the direction of Mecca. 2. Prayer is not communication, but a routine and duty; looking for Baraka. 3. Shi’as pray 3 times a day whereas Sunnis pray 5 times a day. This requirement comes from the hadith, not the Qur’an. a. Muhammad flew from Mecca to Jerusalem on winged horse b. Met many prophets on way to highest level of paradise c. Gabriel tells him his people must pray fifty times, but Moses encourages Muhammad to work the number down to five d. This is why Muslims pray five times e. How do Christians pray? i. Without ceasing! ii. We don’t have to be ritually clean; we approach the throne for cleansing iii. For Muslims, prayer is public, but for us it is private (Mt 6:5-6) C. Fast of Ramadan 1. A time of solidarity for the Muslim community 2. Ninth money of Islamic calendar

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !53

3. Prayers, charity, accountability are part of this time 4. Fasting begins and ends with sighting of the new moon 5. During the fast, no eating, drinking, smoking and sexual intercourse D. Almsgiving 1. Zakat; 2.5% of income; mostly given to poor 2. As Christians, are must give all E. Pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) Â&#x;

Muslims from all over the world who can afford the pilgrimage make the trek to Mecca. Whether one spends paradise in the hereafter could be determined whether a Muslim makes this journey.

F. Jihad 1. Some say it is a part of the pillars, other say no 2. Many Muslims embrace peace 3. And many dress in camouflage draped with M-16s and bombs

! 54

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

III. Conclusion 1. We too have a battle to fight however our power and weapons are much different. Our power comes from the Holy Spirit, not bombs. 2. Our weapon is not a physical sword but the Sword of the Word of God 3. We fight for a kingdom, but it is not on the earth 4. We have a leader we follow, yet not one who kills, but one who died for us.    Application: Please go to page 311 and fill out the Video Lesson 6 Application sheet. Small Group Discussion: Compare the differences in the practices listed in the table below, in Islam and Christianity. Rather than simply listing practices, reflect and write impressions about the validity, depth, meaning, and relevance of each of these practices in the lives of adepts of the two religions.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !55

Has the New Testament Text Been Hopelessly Corrupted? Daniel B. Wallace Dr. Daniel Wallace is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts that is digitizing all known manuscripts of the bible. Wallace has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit orthodox, evangelical views of Jesus— including the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman.

Introduction Throughout the English-speaking world, any group of Christians, from home Bible studies to megachurches, can read the scriptures not only in their own language but with the text of each person’s Bible identical to everyone else’s. Gutenberg’s invention in the mid-fifteenth century has made this possible, yet this very innovation has bred a false sense of certainty about the wording of the Bible. Before the era of the movable-type printing press, all copies of scripture were transcribed by hand, one letter at a time. The painstaking process of copying the whole New Testament would require months of labor for a well-trained scribe. Yet of the thousands of handwritten New Testament manuscripts that still exist, no two are exactly alike. This is what the church for fifteen centuries had to contend with. And we can no longer consult the original documents (or autographs) since they turned to dust long ago, most likely before the end of the second century. Because of these two facts— disagreements among the manuscripts and the disappearance of the autographs—the need arises for examining the manuscripts and making decisions as to what the original text most likely said. In this respect, the New Testament faces the same challenges that the rest of Greco-Roman literature faces. Textual criticism—the science of determining the wording of a document whose original is lost—has to be applied to all of ancient literature, even to much literature that was produced since the printing press was invented (such as Shakespeare’s plays or Lincoln’s Gettysburg address). How difficult is the process of ascertaining the wording of the autographs? The postures on this question widely vary, from extreme uncertainty to dogmatic confidence, and everywhere in between. Recently a provocative book appeared by the atheist apologist, C. J. Werleman, called Jesus Lied. He wrote, “We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible. The originals are lost. We don’t know when and we don’t know by whom. What we

! 56

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

have are copies of copies. In some instances, the copies we have are twentieth generation copies.”57 It is not just atheists who have made such claims. Muslims, too, have joined the chorus.58 On the website “Answering Christianity,” we are told that Christians “have to rely on lies and deception, along with awkward logic to prove their corrupt script, to answer away any contradiction or historical error that a Muslim might present to them.”59 A very popular book among British Muslims makes this claim: The Orthodox Church, being the sect which eventually established supremacy over all the others, stood in fervent opposition to various ideas ([a.k.a.] “heresies”) which were in circulation. These included Adoptionism (the notion that Jesus was not God, but a man); Docetism (the opposite view, that he was God and not man); and Separationism (that the divine and human elements of Jesus Christ were two separate beings). In each case this sect, the one that would rise to become the Orthodox Church, deliberately corrupted the Scriptures so as

C. J. Werleman, Jesus Lied—He Was only Human: Debunking the New Testament (Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England: Dangerous Little Books, 2010) 41. 58

Some Mormon scholars also despair of recovering the New Testament autographic text. See Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, 1999) 61–62; John Gee, “The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity,” in Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005) 163–88; Robert J. Matthews, “What the Book of Mormon Tells Us about the Bible,” in Doctrines of the Book of Mormon: The 1991 Sperry Symposium, ed. Bruce A. Van Orden and Brent L. Top (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1992) 93–107. Not all Mormon scholars share this skepticism, however. For example, Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Manuscript Discoveries of the New Testament in Perspective,” in Papers of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on the Archeology of the Scriptures, ed. Forrest R. Hauch (Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University Press, 1963) 58, 59 (whole article, 52–59) summarizes his findings: “For a book [the New Testament] to undergo progressive uncovering of its manuscript history and come out with so little debatable in its text is a great tribute to its essential authenticity. … no new manuscript discovery has produced serious differences in the essential story”; “The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess”). 59

www.answering-christianity.com.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !57

to reflect its own theological visions of Christ, while demolishing that of all rival sects.60 Among those who display this sort of skepticism about the trustworthiness of the New Testament text are a few biblical scholars. In The Five Gospels, Robert Funk, the head of the Jesus Seminar, claimed: Even careful copyists make mistakes, as every proofreader knows. So we will never be able to claim certain knowledge of exactly what the original text of any biblical writing was.61 The temporal gap that separates Jesus from the first surviving copies of the gospels—about one hundred and seventy-five years—corresponds to the lapse in time from 1776—the writing of the Declaration of Independence—to 1950. What if the oldest copies of the founding document dated only from 1950?62 The leading proponent of extreme skepticism over the wording of the original text is unquestionably Dr. Bart Ehrman, a bona fide New Testament textual critic. In his New York Times Bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, he made the following statements: Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later— much later…. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places… these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even known how many differences there are.63 We could go on nearly forever talking about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed, either accidentally or intentionally.… the examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands.64

M. M. Al-Azami, The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: a Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments (Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada: Al-Qalam, 2003) 277. 61

Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 6 (italics added).

! 58

Ibid.

Misquoting Jesus, 10.

Ibid., 98.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

On the other side are those who claim that every jot and tittle of the autographs is known today, since the Textus Receptus (the Greek New Testament, collated from essentially seven late manuscripts whose credentials were less than stellar, that stands behind the King James Bible) represents exactly what the apostles and their associates wrote so long ago.65 For the King James Only crowd, having certainty about the text is a sine qua non of the Christian faith. One influential writer from this camp, Jasper James Ray, has been highly influential. He argued that no modern version may properly be called the Bible,66 that salvation and spiritual growth can only come through versions based on the Textus Receptus (TR),67 and that Satan is the prime mover behind all modern translations based on the more ancient manuscripts.68 If this author’s views are correct, then Christians who use modern translations based primarily on the few

For a critique of the King James Only view, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979); 66

Jasper James Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible (Junction City, OR: Eye Opener Publishers,

1955) 1. 67

Consider the following statements: “The TEXTUS RECEPTUS… is God’s sure foundation on which to rest our eternal salvation” (ibid., 32); “It is impossible to be saved without ‘FAITH,’ and perfect-saving-faith can only be produced by the ‘ONE’ Bible God wrote, and that we find only in translations which agree with the Greek Textus Receptus…” (122); “Put poison anywhere in the blood stream and the whole becomes poisoned. Just so with the Word of God. When words are added or subtracted, Bible inspiration is destroyed, and the spiritual blood stream is poisoned. In this respect the revised Bibles in our day seem to have become spiritual guinea pigs, with multiple hypodermic shots-in-the-arm by so called Doctors of Divinity, who have used the serum of scholasticism well mixed with modern free-thinking textual criticism. When the Bible words are tampered with, and substitution is made, the Bible becomes a dead thing with neither power to give or sustain life. Of course, even under these conditions, it is possible to build up church membership, and report many professions. But what about regeneration? Are they born again? No person can be born again without the Holy Spirit, and it is evident the Holy Spirit is not going to use a poisoned blood stream to produce healthy Christians. Therefore, beware, beware, lest your faith become marred through the reading of corrupted Revised Versions of the Bible” (ibid., 9). Apparently Ray was not aware that virtually every manuscript adds and omits words. 68

Ibid., ii, 101.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !59

ancient manuscripts are, at best, dupes of the devil and, at worst, in danger of forfeiting their immortal souls.69 Both attitudes—radical skepticism and absolute certainty—are unworthy of the historical evidence. They are the offspring of postmodernism and modernism respectively. Both betray an arrogance about what one certainly knows, but in the case of radical skepticism the only certainty is uncertainty itself. These two attitudes are like driving on the mountain roads in Greece. Drive too far to the left and you will have a head-on collision with a tourist bus. Drive too far to the right and you will end up flying over the cliff where the guardrail should have been. In the middle are moderating views, embraced by the great majority of biblical scholars. The din of alarmists notwithstanding, most biblical scholars—whether they are evangelical or liberal, Protestant or Catholic—believe that what we have today in all essential respects (though not necessarily in all particulars) is what the New Testament authors penned nearly two millennia ago. What are the evidence and arguments that have convinced so many scholars? And what is really at stake? It is our objective in this chapter to focus on three things: (1) 69

Even in later works that are dressed in more scholarly garb, the witch-hunting invectives are still present. David Otis Fuller, for example, in Counterfeit or Genuine[:] Mark 16? John 8? (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1978), speaks of “bastard Bibles” (10). He adds further, as did Ray, that Satan is the mastermind behind this defection from the King James and TR: “born-again Christians in this twentieth century are facing the most malicious and vicious attack upon God’s inspired Holy Word since the Garden of Eden. And this attack began in its modern form in the publication of the Revised Version of the Scriptures in 1881 in England” (9). Donald A. Waite, a Dallas Seminary graduate with both a ThM and ThD from that institute, argued in his The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort (Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, 1979), that the two Cambridge scholars were unregenerate, unsaved, apostate, and heretical (39–42). David D. Shields in his dissertation on “Recent Attempts to Defend the Byzantine Text of the Greek New Testament” (Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas; December, 1985) points out that “the evidence on which [Waite] bases these conclusions often would indict most evangelical Christians. Even in the author’s perspective, Westcott and Hort have theological problems, but the extreme severity of Waite’s approach would declare anyone apostate and heretical who does not hold to his line” (55). Theodore P. Letis, editor of The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate (Fort Wayne, IN: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1987), used vitriolic language seemingly against everybody, for he was in something of a theological no man’s land: his arrows were aimed not only at modern textual criticism, but even against inerrantists. He spoke, for example, of “the idolatrous affair that evangelicals are having with the red herring of inerrancy” (22); those who advocate using modern-language Bibles (including the translators of the New King James Version) are “in pragmatic league with the goddess of modernity—Her Majesty, Vicissitude” (81); virtually all modern translations imbibe in Arianism (203). Ad hominem arguments are found everywhere in his book.

! 60

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

the number of textual variants, (2) the nature of textual variants, and (3) theological issues raised by textual variants. This third issue must be addressed last because the evidence concerning it needs first to be discussed. For the believer, this final issue is the most important. It is also that which has been most distorted by the apologists of skepticism. The Number of Variants We should begin with the definition of “textual variant”: A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts in which there is variation in the wording, including word order, omission or addition of words, even spelling differences. The most trivial differences count, as well as, of course, the most serious. In the past century, the estimated number of textual differences has risen steadily, largely for two reasons: the number of manuscripts known to exist has significantly increased, and the painstaking analysis of individual New Testament books has been published, displaying more variants than were previously known.70 The best estimate today is that there are as many as 400,000 textual variants among the manuscripts. Yet the New Testament has less than 140,000 words in it. This means that for every word in the New Testament there are, on average, almost three variations. Some evangelicals have argued that variants should be counted in terms of manuscripts that have these readings. Thus, if five hundred manuscripts have “Jesus” in one place and another five hundred have “Christ,” there must be five hundred

In 1883, Philip Schaff spoke of 150,000 textual variants as the estimate (Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version [New York: Harper, 1883] 177). With the publication of Herman C. Hoskier’s Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Quaritch, 1929), in which every variant of every known manuscript of Revelation was tabulated, the estimates were revised upwards. And with other publications such as the twovolume text of Luke by the International Greek New Testament Committee, the Editio Critica Maior series by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, and Tommy Wasserman’s The Epistle of Jude (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006)—a work, like Hoskier’s, that documented every variant among the continuous text manuscripts of Jude—the estimates have risen to as high as 400,000.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !61

variants. This view goes back to a book published in 1963, and it has made its way, in a steady stream of misinformation, into more than one apologist’s writings.71 But it is completely false. Textual critics do not count variants by the number of manuscripts supporting them, but by the differences in wording regardless of how many manuscripts support these differences.72 Thus, if a single manuscript deviates from all other manuscripts in a given place, its reading counts as a single textual variant, and if a thousand manuscripts agree with each other but deviate from all others in one place, this wording too counts as a single textual variant. If variants were counted in terms of the witnesses behind them, the number would be in the tens of millions. Nevertheless, 400,000 is still a high figure. Why is it that there are so many textual differences for the New Testament? The reason is quite simple: There are thousands of variants because there are thousands of manuscripts. No classical Greek or Latin text has nearly as many textual deviations because no classical text has nearly as many manuscripts. If there were only one copy of the New Testament in existence, it would have zero variants. Yet for several ancient authors there is only one copy extant today, and sometimes that lone copy comes more than a millennium after the original composition. But a lone, late manuscript would hardly build confidence that that single manuscript duplicated the wording of the original in every respect. In reality, the more manuscripts we have, the better able we are to recover the wording of the autographs. In 1707, a lifelong project saw the light of day when John Mill published his twovolume New Testament just a fortnight before his death. Mill had collated one hundred Greek manuscripts as well as several versions and patristic writers’ comments on the text. His Novum Testamentum listed 30,000 textual differences. This was the first Greek New Testament with any significant amount of variants listed. And it triggered quite a storm. Conservative Protestants condemned Mill’s work as creating doubts about the text of Holy Writ. Remarkably, some even railed against Mill as though he had invented the variants instead of merely discovering them. And Roman Catholics pointed to Mill’s

See Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963) 53–54; Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) 64–65; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1986) 468: “If one single word is misspelled in 3,000 different manuscripts, it is counted as 3,000 variants or readings. Once this counting procedure is understood, and the mechanical (orthographic) variants have been eliminated, the remaining significant variants are surprisingly few in number.” This statement duplicates verbatim the wording found on p. 361 in the first edition of this book, published in 1968. See also Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 532. 72

At minimum, there must be one manuscript in support of a reading; otherwise it is only conjecture.

! 62

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

work as evidence that the sola scriptura of the Reformation was seriously flawed, that Protestants had a ‘paper pope’ which had dissenting opinions on every page. Not all condemned Mill’s work, however. Six years after his Novum Testamentum appeared, a brilliant textual scholar, Richard Bentley, commended Mill’s magnum opus as that which would better enable scholars to recover the autographic wording: If there had been but one manuscript of the Greek Testament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we [would have] had no various readings at all. … And would the text be in a better condition then, than now [that] we have 30,000 [variant readings]? It is good, therefore… to have more anchors than one; and another MS. to join the first would give more authority, as well as security.73 Bentley’s essential point was that the more manuscripts we have the more we can compare their readings and trace their relationships, ultimately enabling us to have greater confidence about the wording of the original. If one hundred manuscripts are significantly better than a single manuscript in this regard, then having many times that amount should multiply that confidence. Today, in Greek alone, more than 5,600 handwritten New Testament documents are known to exist. Many of these are fragmentary of course, especially the older ones, but the average Greek New Testament manuscript is over 450 pages long. Altogether, there are more than 2.6 million pages of text, leaving hundreds of witnesses for every book of the New Testament. As more and more manuscripts come to light, we are getting closer and closer to the wording of the autographs. It is not just Greek manuscripts that help in this endeavor. Beginning in the second century, the New Testament was translated into a variety of languages—Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and a host of others. There are about 10,000 Latin manuscripts of the New Testament alone. No one really knows the total number of all these ancient versions, but the best estimates are between 5000 and 10,000—besides the 10,000 in Latin. Altogether we have at least 20,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament in various languages. Even if none of these documents existed, we would not be left without a witness. (Collectively, manuscripts, versions [or translations], and quotations of the New Testament by the church fathers are known as witnesses or external evidence.) That is because church fathers wrote homilies and commentaries on the New Testament. To

Richard Bentley, Remarks upon a Discourse of Free Thinking (London: J. Morphew and E. Curll, 1713; 8th edition, which is quoted here, published a year after Bentley’s death with additions from his manuscript; London: Knaptons, Manby, and Beecroft, 1743) 349.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !63

date, more than one million quotations of the New Testament by the fathers have been recorded. “[I]f all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.” 74 How do skeptics respond to such data? They argue that the number of manuscripts is irrelevant, especially since the vast majority of them are more than a millennium removed from the originals. [T]he fact that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts does not in itself mean that we can rest assured that we know what the original text said. If we have very few early copies—in fact, scarcely any—how can we know that the text was not changed significantly before the New Testament began to be reproduced in such large quantities?75 The spearhead of the argument tacitly switches from actual numbers to relative amounts, often stated in terms of percentages. It is certainly true that the vast bulk of Greek New Testament manuscripts come from after AD 1000. In fact, more than 85% do. From the first millennium, however, the numbers are still impressive: at least 838

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 126. It should be noted that in the fourth edition of Metzger’s introductory textbook on New Testament textual criticism, Ehrman joined his mentor in the revision. As skeptical as Ehrman has been in his own writings, what he co-authored with his Doktorvater has been a far more moderating and mainstream viewpoint. 75

Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 219. Cf. also Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 449; Eldon J. Epp, “Are Early New Testament Manuscripts Truly Abundant?” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal, ed. by David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy A. Miller (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007) 77–107. It is remarkable that in an article intended to show how sparse are the early data for the New Testament (e.g., “If the early manuscripts are most valuable, what value and how much abundance do we have in the mere eleven manuscripts that have survived from the period up to and around 200 C.E.? At that point, Christianity had been in existence for two hundred years!” [88]), Epp makes no comparison with other ancient Greco-Roman literature. Without such a comparison, there is no way to tell how relatively abundant the early New Testament manuscripts are. Further, nowhere does he discuss how much text of the New Testament was found in these early manuscripts.

! 64

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

manuscripts.76 To argue that New Testament manuscripts from the early centuries are not very plentiful is only true in relation to later New Testament manuscripts—not to anything else in the ancient world. Even from the earliest centuries, the numbers are impressive. How many manuscripts from the first century after the completion of the New Testament still exist? How many from the second? The third? We have today as many as a dozen manuscripts from the second century, sixty-four from the third, and forty-eight from the fourth. That’s a total of 124 manuscripts within 300 years of the composition of the New Testament. Most of these manuscripts are fragmentary, but, collectively, the whole New Testament text is found in them multiple times. And even with 125 years of the completion of the New Testament, the extant manuscripts include 49% of all verses. 77 It may be helpful to put these numbers into perspective. If we are comparing the same time period—300 years after composition—the average classical author has no literary remains at all. But if we compare all the manuscripts of a particular classical author, regardless of when they were written, the total would still average less than twenty, and usually less than a dozen—and they would all be coming much more than three centuries later. There are in fact three times as many manuscripts of the New Testament within two hundred years of its composition as there are of the average classical author within two thousand years of its composition. Thus, to claim that we have ‘scarcely any’ early copies of the New Testament is hardly an accurate representation of the facts. Another standard argument of the radical skeptics is that regardless of the number of New Testament manuscripts, the vast majority are worthless for reconstructing the text of the New Testament because they are so late. The implication they draw from the late date of most New Testament manuscripts is that none of them are trustworthy, that the New Testament is in no better shape than other ancient literature.

A few manuscripts are dated on the cusp of the millennial change (i.e., AD 1000) or cannot be pinpointed more accurately than tenth to eleventh century; these bring the numbers to 860. See codex 2882, posted at www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_2882, as an illustration of a recently-discovered manuscript that has been dated to the tenth/eleventh century. 77

Thanks are due to Brett Williams who catalogued all the verses found in the papyri through the early third century. 3880 verses out of 7917 (the total found in the Nestle-Aland27 Novum Testamentum Graece, sans Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11) is 49.01%. Quite a few of the verses are found in more than one papyrus.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !65

What the skeptics do not mention is that these later manuscripts add less than two percent of material to the text.78 If we can envision the New Testament as a snowball rolling down a hill, picking up alien elements through the centuries, it is remarkable that it only picks up two percent more material over fourteen hundred years. That is an extraordinarily stable transmissional history. Although the New Testament text has grown over time, it has grown very little. Since the earliest texts that we have agree substantially with the later ones, if we were to project backward to the original, the changes from the autographs to the earliest copies would be miniscule.79

The total number of differences between the earliest form of the text and the latest is closer to four percent. The additions alone are about 1.5%, but the latest form of the text does not merely add material; it also omits, transposes, and substitutes words. The majority of these changes are so trivial as to be untranslatable. 79

Although skeptics such as Bart Ehrman have suggested that the earliest manuscripts we have today display significant differences and betray a wild copying tendency, largely because the scribes who produced them were not professionally trained, the evidence speaks otherwise. I offer three pieces of data. (1) Barbara Aland, “Der textkritische und textgeschichtliche Nutzen früher Papyri, demonstriert am Johannesevangelium,” in Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature, ed. Wim Weren and Dietrich Alex-Koch (Assen, The Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003) 19–38, argues that the early papyri of John’s Gospel only display a few notable variants and present, apart from sloppiness in copying, a reasonably reliable text. (2) Zachary Cole, “Scribal Hands of Early New Testament Manuscripts” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012), takes head-on the skeptics’ assertion that non-professional scribes were necessarily careless. By comparing the handwriting of early manuscripts, Cole demonstrates that there is no correlation between a professionally-trained scribe and careful copying or between an untrained scribe and careless copying. (3) Below is a chart of early papyri that have a ‘strict text’ or ‘normal text’ according to Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989). By ‘strict text’ the Alands mean manuscripts that “transmit the text of an exemplar with meticulous care” (64); by ‘normal text’ they mean “a relatively faithful tradition which departs from its exemplar only occasionally” (ibid.). The Alands also speak of five categories of manuscripts in terms of textual character, with Category I being the closest to the autographs (ibid., 335). The chart is my own, culled from the descriptions in this volume.

Of these, some have dated P23, P32, P64 + P67, and P77 to the late second century. There are thus as many as seventeen manuscripts that are earlier than, coeval with, or almost coeval with P75 that have a strict text or nearly so. Altogether, they have almost 500 verses.

! 66

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

How does the New Testament compare to specific ancient writers, especially historians and biographers—the group that comes closest to the genres we find in the New Testament? For many important authors we only have partial works. Livy and Tacitus were two of the most important Roman historians of the first century AD. We base a lot of our understanding of ancient Rome on these two writers. Livy wrote 142 volumes on the history of Rome. Only twenty-five percent of them survive today. Only one third of Tacitus’s writings are still with us. Two hundred copies of Pliny the Elder’s writings remain, but the oldest come seven hundred years after Pliny wrote. Plutarch’s Lives are found in manuscripts no earlier than 800 years after he penned these volumes. Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews is found today in more than twenty copies, none earlier than the ninth century. The earliest copy of Polybius was written 1200 years after he lived. There are massive gaps in copies of Pausanias’s Description of Greece—all of these manuscripts coming more than 1400 years later. Herodotus’s Histories has twenty-six copies, the earliest coming half a millennium later, and the first substantial copy does not appear for another millennium after that. The first substantial copies of Xenophon’s Hellenica come eighteen centuries after he penned his tome. If this were the case with the New Testament, the first substantial copies in existence today would not have been written until after the Wright brothers invented the airplane! For some of the better-preserved writings, there are gaps galore even within the books that have been preserved. One scholar complained that the surviving copies of some of these writings are “[filled with gaps], corrupt, dislocated and interpolated…”80 He then proceeded to lay out principles to fill in the lacunae with nothing but his own reason because he could not find the original wording in any manuscript. Another scholar noted that for the manuscripts of his author, “The chief blemishes are gaps in the text, where the manuscript tradition fails us entirely.”81 The task of filling the gaps without manuscript testimony is absolutely necessary for most of Greco-Roman literature, and almost entirely unknown for the New Testament. In terms of extant manuscripts, the New Testament textual critic is confronted with an embarrassment of riches. If we have doubts about what the autographic New Testament said, those doubts would have to be multiplied at least a hundred-fold82 for

Miroslav Marcovich, Patristic Textual Criticism, Part 1 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) ix.

W. H. S. Jones, translator, Pausanias: Description of Greece (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969) xxvii. 82

Technically, our doubts should be a thousand-fold if there are 20,000 New Testament manuscripts (in Greek and the ancient versions) and less than 20 manuscripts for the average classical author. However, if one were only to look at the more ancient copies of such documents, the ratios could be closer. A hundred-fold is an amount that is hard to argue with.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !67

the average classical author.83 And when we compare the New Testament manuscripts to the very best that the classical world has to offer,84 it still stands head and shoulders above the rest. The New Testament is far and away the best-attested work of Greek or Latin literature from the ancient world. Precisely because we have hundreds of thousands of variants and hundreds of early manuscripts, we are in an excellent position

Note that I did not say that we have no doubts about the autographs of these other ancient writers. But far greater skepticism toward the New Testament is shown than its manuscript testimony would warrant. Further, it is a curious thing that Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus can sound so skeptical of the wording of the original New Testament when a part of his basis for such skepticism is certainty about what some ancient writers said! In other words, part of his argument against the reliability of New Testament manuscripts is his assumption of accuracy of what certain ancient writers’ texts read, even though we have to do textual criticism on their extant manuscripts to try to reconstruct what they wrote. In Misquoting Jesus, he enlists Seneca (46), Martial (47), Hermas (48), Irenaeus (53), Dionysius (53), and Rufinus (54). And most significantly, he discusses Origen’s quotations of Celsus, an antagonist to the Christian faith who wrote about seventy years before Origen did, with the tacit assumption that the copies of Origen that we have accurately reflect what Origen wrote and that Origen accurately recorded what Celsus wrote, even though seventy years separated the two men. If we had the original text of Origen, we would still be dealing with a seventy-year gap after Celsus. But when a similar timegap occurs for the New Testament manuscripts, Ehrman says, “We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later—much later” (Misquoting Jesus, 10), and “If we have very few early copies—in fact, scarcely any—how can we know that the text was not changed significantly before the New Testament began to be reproduced in such large quantities?” (Lost Christianities, 219). 84

Homer’s Iliad has just over 2200 extant manuscripts, while his Odyssey has 141 (so Martin L. West, Homeri Ilias, volumen prius: Rhapsodias I-XII Continens, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana [Stutgardiae et Lipsiae: In Aedibus B. G. Tevbneri, 1998], XXXVIII-LIV; Victor Berard, L’Odyssee: Poesie Homerique, Tome I: Chants 1-VII, Collection des Universites de France [Paris: Societe D’Edition Les Belles Lettres, 1924], XXXVI-XXXIX. The data on the Odyssey, however, need to be updated). Nothing in the ancient Greco-Roman world comes close to this—except, of course, for the New Testament and some patristic writers such as Chrysostom. Not counting patristic citations of the New Testament, there are still almost ten times as many copies of the New Testament as there are Homeric manuscripts extant today.

! 68

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

for recovering the wording of the original.85 Further, if the radical skeptics applied their principles to the rest of Greco-Roman literature, they would thrust us right back into the Dark Ages, where ignorance was anything but bliss. Their arguments only sound impressive in a vacuum. The Nature of Textual Variants The high number of variants may give a false impression as to their nature. How many differences are trivial, affecting nothing? How many of them change the meaning of the text? And how many of these meaningful readings are ‘viable’—that is, they are found in manuscripts with a sufficient pedigree that they have a good possibility of duplicating the original wording? The variants can be broken down into the following categories:

• • • •

Neither viable nor meaningful Viable but not meaningful Meaningful but not viable Both meaningful and viable

Neither Viable nor Meaningful; Viable but not Meaningful The first and second groups of variants can be treated together. Of the hundreds of thousands of textual alterations, the majority are spelling differences that have no impact on the meaning of the text. The ancient scribes did not have standardized spelling but often followed regional usage or their own whim on many words. Yet spelling differences account for about seventy percent of all textual variants. Thousands of these are neither viable nor meaningful, while thousands of others are viable but not meaningful. The name for John is spelled in Greek two different ways, either Ioannes or Ioanes. The same person is in view either way; the only difference is whether the name has two n’s or one. The single most common textual variant involves what is called a movable

In my debate with Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill (1 February 2012, available on www.youtube.com), when I declared that the more variants we have the better off we are for reconstructing the autographic wording of the New Testament because it implied that we had more manuscripts, Ehrman was incredulous. He said that instead what would help the reconstruction would be thousands of manuscripts that were identical to each other. This response is typical of how radical skeptics address the textual problems of the New Testament: they create completely unrealistic expectations for the transmission of the New Testament— expectations that could not possibly be met for any documents that were copied by hand—and then declare that the New Testament text is unreliable because it does not live up to such standards. Applying the same criteria to any other ancient literature would result in almost total rejection of our knowledge of human history until the printing press had been invented.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !69

nu. The Greek letter nu (n) can occur at the end of certain words when they precede a word that starts with a vowel. This is similar to the two forms of the indefinite article in English: a and an. But whether the nu appears in these words or not, there is absolutely no difference in meaning. A good number of the spelling differences are nonsense readings. These come about when a scribe is fatigued, inattentive, or perhaps does not know Greek very well. Nonsense readings are the easiest to weed out—both for the modern textual critic and for the scribe who copied the errant exemplar. Further, nonsense readings tell scholars a great deal about how a scribe went about his work. The scribe of the medieval manuscript, codex Neapolitanus (or Gregory-Aland 109), inattentively wrote out Luke’s version of Jesus’ genealogy, which had been set forth in two columns in his exemplar. Without noticing the two columns in the manuscript he was transcribing, this scribe copied across the columns as though they were a single block of text. The result was a uniquely bizarre family tree, with mistakes everywhere. God, in fact, is said to be the son of Aram in this manuscript! In 1 Thessalonians 2:7 an interesting textual problem appears. Most manuscripts read “we became gentle among you” while a few early and important manuscripts have “we became little children among you.” The difference between ‘gentle’ and ‘little children’ is a single letter: either nepioi or epioi. This is a classic textual problem that is not particularly easy to solve. The HCSB, RSV, ESV, NASB, REB, TEV, NIV and most other translations have ‘gentle,’ while the NET, TNIV, and NIV 2011 read ‘little children.’ One late medieval manuscript instead has ‘horses’ (hippoi)! It’s a nonsense reading here, but no doubt due to the scribe’s misreading of one of the other variants in the manuscript he was copying. These nonsense readings are easy to detect and usually point to another word that is well represented among the manuscripts. It is not insignificant that a very large amount of the textual variants in New Testament manuscripts are of this sort. Sometimes such nonsense readings occur in early and important manuscripts. An early third-century manuscript of Luke and John, known as P75, has a few nonsense readings. Each reading involves one or two letters, suggesting that the scribe copied the text one or two letters at a time.86 Indeed, this scribe was overall very careful, though overly concerned with writing exactly what his exemplar read without also wrestling with the sense. The eighth-century manuscript, codex Regius (a.k.a. codex L), an important witness to the New Testament text, has a number of blunders in it, the most amusing being in John 1.30. The original text here is undisputed: John the Baptist says, “after me comes a man…” (opiso mou erchetai aner). John was referring to Jesus when he spoke of this ‘man’ (aner). But the scribe of codex L forgot the nu in the word aner,

E. C. Colwell, “Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75,” in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies 9, ed. Bruce M. Metzger (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969), 115–16.

! 70

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

thereby producing the word aer—air. In codex Regius, then, John the Baptist says, “After me comes air”!87 Other examples of viable but not particularly meaningful variants involve the use of the definite article with proper names and transpositions (in which the arrangement of the words varies). Proper names sometimes use the definite article, sometimes not. But in translation the article is left off. In Luke 2:16 we read, “They hurried off and found both Mary and Joseph, and the baby who was lying in the feeding trough” (HCSB). But in the Greek text, the couple are called “the Mary and the Joseph.” Greek is a highly inflected language and word order is generally more a matter of emphasis than meaning. Thus, one can write in Greek “Jesus loves John” and the words can stand in any order without affecting the basic meaning. When these two groups of variants—transpositions and definite articles with proper names—occur in a simple sentence such as “Jesus loves John,” there are at least sixteen different ways to write it in Greek, without even involving different spellings for ‘John.’ And when spelling variations, synonyms, and particles that are frequently untranslated are taken into account, the Greek clauses that would all be rendered “Jesus loves John” numbers in the hundreds. In light of these possibilities, 400,000 variants for the New Testament manuscripts are seen to be almost tiny in comparison with the potential pool of insignificant wording differences. Meaningful but not Viable A rather large group of variants are those that make sense and are appropriate to the context but are supported only by insignificant or late manuscripts. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 2:9, one medieval manuscript has “the gospel of Christ” instead of “the gospel of God,” the reading found in all other copies. This is a meaningful variation, but it has no credibility: there is little chance that a lone late manuscript could have the autographic wording when all the rest of the witnesses uniformly support a different text. In a tenth-eleventh century copy of Luke’s Gospel, the scribe has an interesting reading at Luke 6:22. The verse, as found in almost all manuscripts, is translated in the HCSB as “You are blessed when people hate you, when they exclude you, insult you, and slander your name as evil because of the Son of Man.” But codex 2882 lacks “because of the Son of Man.” The manuscript thus makes a general pronouncement of blessing for the persecuted, regardless of whether they are Christ-followers or not— perfectly suited for our postmodern world. There is no obvious reason why the scribe

See Matthew P. Morgan, “The Legacy of a Letter: Sabellianism or Scribal Blunder in John 1.1c?” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, ed. Daniel B. Wallace (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011) 91–126, for this and several other examples of blunders in codex L.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !71

would have deleted the words, but this surely must have happened. No other manuscript lacks “because of the Son of Man” and this codex generally follows the textform current in his day. For a scribe a millennium removed from Luke’s autograph, whose text otherwise is in line with a generally later and less accurate form of Luke, is hardly likely, by himself, to have the original wording here. Harmonizations in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) occur in manuscripts on a massive scale. Scribes had a strong tendency to harmonize the wording in the Gospels, especially changing Mark’s text to conform to the wording found in Matthew in parallel passages. Two groups of manuscripts—the Western and Byzantine text-forms—were especially prone to harmonization. Since it is a known scribal practice to harmonize the wording between two Gospels,88 the reading that does not harmonize is typically considered to be authentic. When harmonizations are found in later manuscripts and non-harmonizations in earlier manuscripts, scholars naturally prefer the non-harmonized reading. The reason is simple enough: ancient scribes, like modern-day Christians, tended to harmonize parallel passages, even when the differences were trivial. What scribes would intentionally de-harmonize the parallel passages? If every Gospels manuscript of substantial length harmonizes, the scribes were clearly not malicious when it came to this issue. Further, by the second century, scribes viewed the Gospels as scripture. But they also recognized that the exemplar they were copying had mistakes in it. And they often thought they detected such mistakes in parallel passages in which the accounts did not say the same thing. Examples of harmonization in the Gospel manuscripts can be found on any page in the apparatus of the standard critical text of the New Testament. These first three categories of alterations—neither meaningful nor viable, viable but not meaningful, and meaningful but not viable—constitute the overwhelming majority of textual variants found in New Testament manuscripts. They give the proper context for Ehrman’s provocative-sounding remark, “We could go on nearly forever talking about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed, either accidentally or intentionally.… the examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands.”89

Gordon D. Fee, “Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem: On the Problem of Harmonization in the Gospels,” in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 174–82. Even some advocates of what is known as the ‘majority text’ recognize that harmonizations are plentiful in their preferred text-form. See Willem Franciscus Wisselink, Assimilation as a Criterion for the Establishment of the Text: A Comparative Study on the Basis of Passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989), 87–90. 89

! 72

Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 98.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Meaningful and Viable Variants The last category of variants are those that are both meaningful and viable. This is the group of textual differences that show up as marginal readings in Bible translations. They are by far the smallest category, consisting of less than one percent of all textual variations.90 How meaningful are these readings? They change the meaning of the text to some degree, but not necessarily a lot. If the wording affects our understanding of the passage then it is considered meaningful, and if it is found in sufficiently significant and reliable witnesses, it is viable. Many skeptics have argued for sweeping agnosticism about the wording of the original, when the reality is that our uncertainty about the autographs is over a tiny fraction of the whole. To apply their skepticism to the entire New Testament text is irresponsible and sloppy scholarship. As an illustration of my last point, consider a debate I had with Bart Ehrman, held at Southern Methodist University on 1 October 2011. The two-hour event boasted the largest attendance ever of any debate over the text of the New Testament—more than 1400 people! During the Q & A, a local pastor, Justin Bass, asked Ehrman what it would take for him to be convinced that the wording of Mark’s Gospel was certain. Ehrman responded that it would require ten manuscripts, all copied from the original of Mark’s Gospel within one week of its composition, and having no more than 0.001% deviation from each other.91 One would think that such a radical skeptic as Ehrman would have thought about this question for some time and that his response would reflect his well-thought-out reasoning. The reality is that he spoke off the cuff: not only have his criteria never been met for any ancient writing (thus making them an impossible standard to achieve, historically speaking) but it would mean that there would be no more than one half of one letter difference among all these manuscripts!92 Ehrman later admitted on the Internet’s TC List that he was exaggerating when answering Dr. Bass’s question, in spite of the fact that Bass was asking for the minimum

Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus is notorious for camping on this final category of variants, but usually by leaving the reader completely unaware that they constitute a tiny fraction of all textual differences. As Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, notes, “What most distinguishes the work are the spins Ehrman puts on some of the data at numerous junctures and his propensity for focusing on the most drastic of all the changes in the history of the text, leaving the uninitiated likely to think there are numerous additional examples of various phenomena he discusses when there are not” (Denver Journal 9 [2006]; accessed on-line). 91

The DVD of the debate is available at www.csntm.org.

Mark’s Gospel in Greek has less than 57,000 letters; 0.001% deviation is one out of 100,000 or one half of one letter.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !73

amount of evidence required to convince Ehrman. 93 This sort of skepticism, although increasingly common today among non-Christian biblical scholars, creates Chicken Littles by preying on the fear of the unknown of those who have not had the privilege of studying the New Testament in Greek. And it reveals the real agenda of such scholars: no amount of evidence will ever convince them that their wholesale cynicism is even remotely improbable. When more evidence is produced, they simply move the station a little farther down the railroad track. As we have seen, the vast bulk of textual variants are inconsequential. Whether John’s name was spelled in the Greek New Testament with one nu or two may remain a mystery. But John’s name is never spelled M-a-r-y. The issues that textual scholars have to deal with are so insignificant to most other New Testament scholars that the latter often assume that there is nothing left to do in the discipline. But textual criticism has historically been the backbone of exegesis, since one cannot tell what the text means until he or she knows what it says. Although at the beginning of the twenty-first century most of the text of the New Testament is not in dispute, some passages still are. A meaningful and viable textual variant is found in Romans 5:1. Does Paul say, “We have peace” (echomen) or “let us have peace” (echomen)? The difference between the indicative and subjunctive mood is a single letter—either a long o or a short o. The similar sounding omicron (ο) and omega (ω) were most likely both pronounced as o in Hellenistic Greek (as they are in later Greek), making the decision even more difficult. Indeed, scholars are on both sides of this textual problem, although most translations go with the indicative. But neither variant is a contradiction of the teaching of scripture. If Paul is saying that Christians have peace (indicative mood), he is speaking about their positional status with God. If the apostle is exhorting believers to have peace with God (subjunctive mood), he is urging them to appropriate the “indicatives of the faith”—the foundational truths on which Christianity is based—by living them out in their daily lives. Textual critics consider a combination of factors when they try to ascertain the wording of the autographs. The evidence is broken down into two categories, broadly speaking: external evidence—that is, what the manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic quotations of the New Testament read; and internal evidence—what scribes were likely to have done (such as harmonize passages) and what the author was likely to have done. External evidence and internal evidence are usually on the same side— that is, both of them normally point to the same reading as authentic. When this is the case, the decision is easy. The agreement of these two categories of evidence becomes a twofold cord, one that is not easily broken. Yet there are plenty of examples in which the internal evidence is at odds with 93

Several exchanges between Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace on the TC-List, 10–14 Dec 2011, accessible at the site http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/tc-list.html.

! 74

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

the external. For example, Philippians 1:14 says, “Most of the brothers in the Lord have gained confidence from my imprisonment and dare even more to speak the message fearlessly” (HCSB). The question naturally arises, What ‘message’ (in Greek: logos [word])? Paul doesn’t tell us. Scribes predictably added “of God,” clarifying what word was in view. Some even added “of the Lord.” Surprisingly, many of the early, better manuscripts are the ones that add “of God,” while the majority of later manuscripts do not have these words. This is a classic illustration of the clash between internal and external evidence. The fundamental principle that textual critics follow is to choose the reading that seems to give rise to the other(s). In this case, most scholars consider the shorter reading to be authentic since scribes were prone to add clarifying notes to ambiguous phrases. This textual problem involves meaningful and viable variants. But no theological issues are at stake. In Matthew 27:16–17 we read, “At that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. So when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, ‘Who is it you want me to release for you—Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Messiah?’” (HCSB). This is substantially the text found in most of the manuscripts, including the earliest and best. However, one group of manuscripts has ‘Jesus’ before ‘Barabbas’ in both verses. One can easily see why scribes would be prone to omit the name ‘Jesus’ before ‘Barabbas’ since Barabbas was an infamous criminal who certainly did not deserve the same name as the Son of God. One patristic writer, in fact, arguing against the addition, said that no sinner was ever called ‘Jesus’ in scripture, so the word must be expunged before Barabbas’s name.94 Pious scribes who thought along the same lines would naturally delete the name. What is not so easy to explain is why some scribes would add the name ‘Jesus’ before ‘Barabbas.’ The internal evidence, in this case, seems to better explain the rise of the omission than the other way around. Consequently, the NET, TNIV, NIV 2011, TEV, REB, and NRSV have “Jesus Barabbas” in each verse. But again, no theological issue is at stake. In fact, it may be that Matthew is preserving a historical tidbit that involves a bit of irony: One Jesus died in the place of another Jesus, the second one being unworthy of the name. The two longest textual variants among the manuscripts involve a dozen verses each—Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. There are no other variants that come close. Not surprisingly, some skeptics are hardly even-handed in dealing with these problems. As one scholar complained, [Ehrman’s] first extended examples of textual problems in the New Testament are the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark. After demonstrating how neither of these is likely to be part of the originals of either 94

See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 56.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !75

Gospel, Ehrman concedes that “most of the changes are not of this magnitude” (p. 69). But this sounds as if there are at least a few others that are of similar size, when in fact there are no other textual variants anywhere that are even one-fourth as long as these thirteen [sic]- and twelve-verse additions.95 In Mark 16, the earliest and best manuscripts end the book at verse 8: “So they went out and started running from the tomb, because trembling and astonishment overwhelmed them. And they said nothing to anyone, since they were afraid” (HCSB). Such an abrupt end to the Gospel has caused no end of debate among scholars. Did Mark intend to end his Gospel this way? Was the real ending lost? Or were verses 9–20, found in the great majority of manuscripts, the real ending to this Gospel?96 A similar situation occurs in John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery. New Testament scholars by a wide margin regard this text in the same way they regard Mark 16:9–20: these verses are not authentic. Most Christians, if forced to make a choice, would rather have the story of the woman caught in adultery than the long ending to Mark in their Bibles.97 Yet the evidence is significantly weaker for John 7:53–8:11 than for Mark 16:9–20. In spite of its appeal as an important story about Jesus’ tenderness and forgiveness toward a sinner, it most likely was not penned by the author of the Fourth Gospel. For our purposes, we need to point out that whether either of these passages is authentic or not, no fundamental truth is gained or lost by them. To be sure, the textual decision will affect how one views these Gospels as a whole, but it does not affect any cardinal doctrine. Although the textual variants among the New Testament manuscripts number in the hundreds of thousands, the nature of these variants is on a different scale. Those that are both meaningful and viable are less than one percent of the whole; the numbers are in the hundreds, not the hundreds of thousands. Remarkably, many skeptics write as though the excision of such texts could shake up orthodox convictions.98 Such is not the case. I am aware of no confessional statements at seminaries, Christian colleges, or major denominations that were retooled in the slightest because of the excision of any of the meaningful and viable variants. 95

Blomberg, Denver Journal 9 (accessed on-line).

For a debate over the text of Mark 16:9–20, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008). 97

In scores of lectures I have given on the text of the New Testament in churches, colleges, apologetics conferences, and the like, I have found that overwhelmingly the Johannine text is preferred over the Markan. 98

! 76

See, for example, the sources cited at the beginning of this chapter.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Theological Issues Raised by Textual Variants In this section, I wish to highlight two points. First, even though scholars have argued from time to time that serious theological discrepancies are found in viable variants, the evidence simply cannot be twisted in that direction. Second, we will discuss whether inerrancy is affected by viable variants. As we have noted throughout this chapter, Bart Ehrman is the primary protagonist for major theological tampering of the New Testament by early orthodox scribes. Yet even Ehrman had to stop short of claiming that any cardinal doctrine is in jeopardy because of textual uncertainty. And the fact that he has done so reveals that the Muslim and atheist apologists who depend on his scholarship have misread his books and have blown the evidence way out of proportion. In the appendix to the paperback version of Misquoting Jesus there is a Q&A section. The most telling question asked of Ehrman is this: “Why do you believe these core tenets of Christian orthodoxy to be in jeopardy based on the scribal errors you discovered in the biblical manuscripts?” Ehrman’s response: “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” The question unmasked the prevailing attitude by readers of Misquoting Jesus: they believed that Ehrman had indeed demonstrated early orthodox scribes to have twisted scripture beyond recognition. This is also how many followers, especially atheist and Muslim apologists, had read his book. Yet Ehrman’s answer showed that he never demonstrated this. Suffice it to say that viable textual variants that disturb essential Christian beliefs have not been found in New Testament manuscripts. Although as we have seen that scribes did indeed change the scriptures to conform to what they believed it meant, their tampering with the text has been severely overstated.99 And the very fact that scholars have been able to detect these changes shows that the

For an extended critique of Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), on which his Misquoting Jesus was based, see Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, ed. Daniel B. Wallace (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011).

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !77

autographic wording is knowable.100 It is unfortunate that so many have abandoned the Christian faith on a feeling that the scriptures are unreliable, or on bloated claims of corruption. After all the dust is settled, the manuscripts of the New Testament are, in all essentials, reliable witnesses to the apostolic faith. Regarding inerrancy, we should first of all note that evangelical theologians have insisted that the autographs are inerrant, and that the copies are inerrant only insofar as they faithfully duplicate the original wording.101 Those outside the evangelical community routinely assume that the fact of thousands of textual variants necessarily proves inerrancy to be a false doctrine. 102 But the fact of variants is irrelevant to the doctrine since inerrancy is about the wording of the original text. Second, we should note that the doctrine of inerrancy does not mean that differences in spelling, grammar, or idioms are relevant. For example, John uses the Greek word for “he opened,” spelling it three different ways in eight verses!103 Inerrancy has to do with the message of the Bible, not necessarily the packaging of that message. From Calvin to Kantzer, those who embrace inerrancy have no problem

100

Moisés Silva gave an insightful critique of those scholars who wanted to jettison the quest of determining the wording of the original text (“Response,” in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism [ed. David Alan Black; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002] 149): For us to retreat from the traditional task of textual criticism is equivalent to shooting ourselves in the foot. And my exhibit A is Bart Ehrman’s brilliant monograph The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture … Although this book is appealed to in support of blurring the notion of an original text, there is hardly a page in that book that does not in fact mention such a text or assume its accessibility… Indeed, Ehrman’s book is unimaginable unless he can identify an initial form of the text that can be differentiated from a later alteration. 101

For example, the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society, the largest society of evangelical scholars in the world, says “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” 102

E.g., Roger Bolton, “The Rival to the Bible,” in the BBC News Magazine, 6 Oct 2008 (accessible at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm), in discussing the digitization of Codex Sinaiticus by the British Library, claimed “For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. [Codex Sinaiticus] shows there have been thousands of alterations to today’s bible.” In John 9.14, 17, and 21 the third person singular aorist active indicative of ἀνοίγω is spelled successively as ἀνέῳξεν, ἠνέῳξεν, and ἤνοιξεν. 103

! 78

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

allowing for non-substantive errors in the text.104 Third, we should also note what the impact of viable variants is on the doctrine. After all, if there are some variants that may well be authentic and yet seem to contradict inerrancy, then the doctrine may be in jeopardy. Although several potential textual problem passages have been produced, not one has compelled evangelical scholars to abandon this doctrine. 105 Conclusion Has the New Testament text been hopelessly corrupted? Even bona fide textual critics who happen to be skeptics have not been able to demonstrate this to be so. Instead, the text is certain in all essentials, and even in most particulars we can be relatively sure what the autographs said. Further, in the passages in which the text is in doubt, no cardinal doctrine is at stake. Most importantly, the death and resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ—the core of the Christian faith—has not been tampered with throughout fourteen hundred years of textual transmission. Questions: 1. If a Muslim were to challenge your faith, saying: "Your Bible is corrupted and all your Bible manuscripts have variants in them, how would you respond?" 2. 400,000 can seem to be a high number of varients between N.T. manuscripts. Why is it that there are so many textual differences for the New Testament? Can you name the different categories of variants? 3. If a Muslim were to challenge your faith, saying: "Your Bible is corrupted and all your Bible manuscripts have variants in them, how would you respond?" 4. Do Bible manuscripts contain the essential Christian doctrines - how do you know? 104

John Calvin sometimes noted the infelicities in the language of the biblical writers, such as in Rom 5.15: “Although he [Paul] frequently mentions the difference between Adam and Christ, all his repeated statements… are elliptical. Those, it is true, are faults in his language, but in no way do they detract from the majesty of the heavenly wisdom which is delivered to us by the apostle” (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and Thessalonians, trans. David and Thomas Torrance [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960] 114). J. I. Packer appropriately comments on Calvin’s view of these grammatical and stylistic impoverishments: “Calvin would fault an apostle for poor style and bad grammar but not for substantive inaccuracy” (“John Calvin and the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture,” in Inerrancy and the Church, ed. John D. Hannah [Chicago: Moody, 1984] 178-79). Kenneth Kantzer notes, in his essay on “Inerrancy and the Humanity and Divinity of the Bible,” that “Inerrancy teaches us that God kept the Biblical writers from bearing false witness as they wrote the Bible. However inglorious human language may be, and therefore, however imperfect the human language of the Bible may be, it still always tells the truth” (in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987 [Nashville: Broadman, 1987] 156 [italics added]). 105

See Daniel B. Wallace, “Inerrancy and the Text of the New Testament: Assessing the Logic of the Agnostic View,” in Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science, edited by William A. Dembsky and Michael L. Licona (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010).

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !79

VIDEO LESSON 5 Everything You Need to Know about Radical Islam    I. Introduction A. Islam is in the consciousness of the American people B. There seems to be a resurgence of Islam C. “Why do they hate us” and “Is Islam a religion of peace” are being asked D. Has Islam truly been hijacked by radicals who misinterpret their religious tradition? E. If I were a Muslim striving to literally follow the teachings of their prophet Muhammad I would be a radical Muslim. F. The radicals are not lunatics 1. Syed Qutb, Maududi 2. Osama bin Laden’s letters 3. How many Evangelicals are concerned about materialism, etc? G. I want to take away the shroud of mystery and fear surrounding Islam II. IS ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE? A. Distinction between Islam and Muslim people 1. Many Muslims are moderate, honorable citizens 2. Strong values; decry radicals B. But we must look to the founder of Islam, Muhammad, to answer the question 1. He was born in Mecca 2. AD 610, Angel Gabriel gave him revelations

! 80

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

3. Prophetic career lasted 23 years 4. His religious teachings were very much one of peace and unity between the different groups there 5. AD 622, lost support of many of the Arab tribesmen 6. He taught that there was only one God and that he was his prophet, but he did temporarily yield to the temptation to allow the pagan gods a place in his religion 7. Moved to Medina, established political community, ummah, and began aggressive period of his life. 8. Dr. Richard Bailey, explains that within the Qur’an one can find 4 stages to Muhammad’s fighting campaigns: a. Muhammad lived in Mecca; he had no power; very peaceful b. Later period in Mecca; defensive fighting permitted c. Medina, defensive fighting is obligatory d. Later Medina, political power and military offensive fighting commanded i. Q9:5, “Then fight them and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.” This is replaced by the verse that follows it. ii. Q9:29, “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians).” Following this is the payment of jizya. iii. Q47:4, “So, when you meet (to fight—Jihad in Allah’s cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till you have killed and wounded many of them.”

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !81

iv. 149 (164?) sword verses replace the peaceful verses v. Khilafa, or the Islamic state commanded by Allah and established by jihad; Christians believe in a heavenly kingdom. Islam must dominate. 8. Muhammad was to be the example of faithfulness for all mankind, captured in the Sira, the biography of the prophet. a. Muhammad personally participated in 27 battles and assisted or oversaw some 59 others b. Averaged nine battle campaigns annually over his last ten years c. They were not defensive, but unprovoked raiding campaigns giving the option of converting to Islam, becoming a dhimmi, or dying in battle. d. The Battle of Badr saw 1000 enemy to 300 Muslims e. The Battle of the Trench was also significant amongst Muhammad’s expeditions leading to executions f. Muhammad’s example helps us understand the beheadings today (Q47:4) 9. Legacy of jihad followed after Muhammad a. In first one hundred years, Syria, Iraq, Iran all conquered; in the first ten years 1million killed! b. Five Christian capitals conquered; entire Eastern world comes under attack c. 50,000 women and children taken at one battle; if Charles Martel had not won at Battle of Tours, Europe might be Islamic today. d. Fregosi, “Islam has always preached war. Its founder and its heroes were warriors. ‘The sword is the key to heaven and hell’ Muhammad told his followers.” e. Dr. Don McCurry, “What makes Islam unique is that it has institutionalized and even blessed this propensity to violence in the form of Jihad . . . violent acts committed in the name of Allah . . . it was Muhammad who

! 82

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

incorporated it as religious duty in Islam. . . . In order to be a consistent Muslim, one should be a militant one. That is the nature of Islam.” f. Muhammad is the example; Islam must dominate; War on terrorism began not in 1991, but since the beginning of Islam. g. Usman Dan Fodio, Turabi, Bashir, and Al Qaeda is part of the legacy. In some of these areas, the Church has been greatly affected. h. One author states that “Most of the terrorism in the contemporary world has taken place in the Muslim World or is launched by Islamist groups against people of other creeds and nationalities.” C. What makes a terrorist tick? 1. What all of this means is that the war on terrorism actually did not begin in September 2001! 2. All beliefs have consequences. The violent history of Islam provides the ideological foundation for radical Muslims and their activities. 3. These Radicals make up roughly 15% of Muslims worldwide, which equal 300 million people, or the entire population of the United States. 4. So how do Muslims become radical? What makes a terrorist tick? a. Recruiting radicals i. al Qaeda has trained 25,000-50,000; no one is born a radical! ii. Mujahedeen from 1984-87, 80,000 fighters trained iii. Abdullah Azzam, “Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues . . . jihad will remain an individual obligation until all other lands that were Muslim are returned to us so that Islam will reign again: before us lie Palestine, Bokhara, Lebanon, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, the Philippines.” iv. al Qaeda manual, “The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates . . . Platonic ideals . . .

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !83

nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun. . . . Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they always have been; by pen and gun; by word and bullet; and by tongue and teeth.” b. Indoctrination i. The Muslim thinkers inspire disillusioned Muslims to fight and then convert a West that is in a slow demise ii. We agree with their observations: materialism, promiscuity, and drunkenness iii. “Muslim leaders claim that Westerners want to ‘transform the entire world into an entertainment house where they are free to perpetuate their evil deeds.’. . . Furthermore, Western leaders are ‘Satan inspired, out to create havoc everywhere especially among Muslim states like Iraq, Algeria, Afghanistan.’” iv. We do not overcome evil with evil but evil with good. (I Thess.5:15) v. Peter Riddell, “The roots of radical Muslim anger against the West is not only due necessarily to Western materialism, or nineteen century colonialism, or even American imperialism, but that Islam, throughout its history, has contained within itself a deep and powerful channel of divinely-ordained violence, legitimized by certain passages of the Qur’an, and exemplified by their prophet Muhammad himself.” vi. Indoctrination is rhetoric and an appeal to the Qur’an vii. To them Muhammad is deemed the perfect example of a faithful life for all of humanity for all time. Just as Christians are called to look to Christ as the model, the radical Muslims look to Muhammad for their model. So these ‘radical Muslims’ read and interpret their scriptures the same way ‘fundamentalist’ or Evangelical Christians do. D. An inside look into the mind of a suicide bomber

! 84

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

1. Our understanding starts with the concept of martyrdom in Islam a. There is a developed theology and veneration of martyrdom b. Sure means to enter paradise is to die in jihad c. On the Day of Judgment, Allah will weigh one’s good deeds against the bad deeds (Q23:102-103, 101:6-11) d. One’s destiny depends on which side of the scale is heavier and a capricious Allah e. But holy warriors have immediate entrance (Q47:4-6) 2. Debate among Muslims: whether suicide for the sake of jihad is permissible and acceptable as martyrdom a. “Our love for death is greater than our love for life.” b. Sheikh Muhammad Yazbeck, “Let America, Israel and the world know that we have a lust for martyrdom and our motto is being translated into reality.” c. 36 percent of 12 year old boys in Gaza believe it is good to die as suicide bomber d. Where do they learn about martyrdom? Paradise summer camps. e. Suicide bombing in the contemporary jihadist mind is rooted in orthodox Islamic ideology 3. Carnal motivation, too? a. Houris or beautiful large-eyed perpetual virgins b. Silk gowns, majestic thrones; the prohibited becomes allowed c. Very different paradise than the Christian concept 4. They leave behind letters or videos explaining their decision

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !85

a. Families are given financial grants b. The Palestinian Authority signed a law to support the families of suicide bombers 5. The individual or community that participates in [these actions] finds itself between two blissful outcomes; either victory and triumph or martyrdom and Paradise. E. What is the apocalyptic vision of Iran? 1. Shi’a of Iran; president Ahmadinejad believes Israel must be wiped out a. Letter to President Bush, May 8, 2006 inviting him to become Muslim b. Muhammad did the same to opposition before attacking them 2. Twelver Shi’i Islam a. 12th Imam or Mahdi will return b. He was born in AD 868, still alive but unseen c. Return hastened by chaos on earth; apocalyptic scenario precedes the return of the Mahdi F. Why aren’t moderate Muslims confronting radicals? 1. Many so-called moderates are equivalent to nominal Christians a. They have not read their scriptures b. Tend to be less activist and apathetic 2. Some, however, are speaking out a. Liberal or Moderate Muslims tend to define jihad as an inward striving against the lusts of the flesh towards faithfulness b. The greater jihad, but radicals take a literal interpretation of the Qur’an

! 86

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

c. Moderate voice overwhelmed 3. But there is another dynamic as well: recall the four stages of Muhammad’s career a. Some moderates have radical leanings but are quite due to stage one b. Muslims in Western nations don’t have political clout c. Thin line between moderate and radical in Islam! G. Why you are afraid of Islam 1. Fear should not be the evangelical response 2. Q8:57-60, “Strike fear [or terror] into the heart of the infidels.” 3. Christ has overcome the world; he has not given us a spirit of fear, but of love and power. 4. Three reasons for our fear a. Christians haven’t connected with a powerful, living God. i. What is the Church’s witness? ii. Where there is power there is no fear iii. Nominal Christianity will not win over radical Islam b. Christians fear Islam because of persecution i. Jesus said some of you will be persecuted and some of you will be killed ii. 2 Tim 3:12, to live a godly life in Christ is to suffer c. Christians don’t know what they believe i. How many have discipled a Muslim convert?

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !87

ii. The church’s ideas have consequences as well iii. We fear what we do not know III. Conclusion A. OBL is one of the foremost radical ideologues of the Islamic faith, wrote, “You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You then rant that you support the liberation of women. You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment . . . and freedom. The . . . thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.” B. Radical Muslims are trying to solve the problems with bombs. C. The Church must put aside fear and complacency and respond to the challenge of Islam with equal boldness in love and witness. Application: Please go to page 312 and fill out the Video Lesson 4 Application sheet. Small Group Discussion: a. Is Islam a religion of peace? (Justify your answer) b. What are the characteristics of a "nominal Christian"? c. What are the characteristics of a true disciple of Christ? d. Give two suggestions on what can be done to awaken nominal Christians. e. (Question for personal reflection): Based on your answers to the two previous questions, are you a "nominal Christian" or a true disciple of Christ?

! 88

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

JIHAD, MARTYRDOM AND THE END OF THE WORLD David Cook David Cook is associate professor of religious studies at Rice University specializing in Islam. He did his undergraduate degrees at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 2001. His areas of specialization include early Islamic history and development, Muslim apocalyptic literature and movements (classical and contemporary), radical Islam, historical astronomy and Judeo-Arabic literature. His first book, Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic, was published by Darwin Press in the series Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Two further books, Understanding Jihad (Berkeley: University of California Press) and Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press) were published during 2005, and Martyrdom in Islam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007). Cook is continuing to work on contemporary Muslim apocalyptic literature, with a focus upon Shi`ite materials, as well as preparing manuscripts on jihadi groups and Western African Muslim history. David Cook Teaches Course #21 of Mission Muslim World University called Jihad, Martyrdom, Shâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ism, and the Muslim Apocalyptic

Introduction Islam and the West have a lengthy history of both confrontation and crosspollination. For the past fourteen centuries these two adversaries have to a large degree dominated the confluence of the three continents of Asia, Africa and Europe, and struggled for the hearts and minds of first the peoples of these continents, and then on a larger scale, the entire world. Today we see the continuation of this struggle, since Islam and Christianity are two of the three belief-systems that command worldwide support and have adherents on every continent and among almost every people. The reasons for the struggle are not difficult to understand. Both Islam and Christianity are global, missionary faiths whose primary imperative is to proclaim and convert the entire world. Both Islam and Christianity are representative of entire ways of life, which the convert usually adopts in their entirety. Both faiths have been highly successful in preaching and converting, as well as assimilating foreign elements and controlling and

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !89

dominating others. There are few places on the globe to which, at one time or another, Islam or Christianity has not penetrated. Islam’s appeal is based on a number of different factors. It is a monotheistic faith, which preaches a simple, yet profound, message that stands at the center of an entire way of life. The message of the Qur’an is that of the necessity to repent previous to the horrors of the impending Day of Judgment. God is merciful and accepting for the present, but this conciliatory attitude towards humanity will not persist. On a regular basis He sends messengers to erring humanity, all with the same message: God is one, worship Him alone. Most of the time mankind has willfully rejected God’s invitation to repent and persecuted the messengers. His response has been to judge and ultimately destroy these ungodly civilizations, leaving their ruins as a reminder to future generations to fear God. Sometimes, however, in the past these messengers have succeeded in bringing about repentance and establishing god-fearing religions; these such as Judaism and Christianity, however, have been corrupted on a time after time by people who have added or deleted significant elements of the message and perverted its original monotheism. Such is the Qur’anic presentation of the history of mankind. Much of the holy text, however, deals with the reality of the Prophet Muhammad’s time. His situation was similar to the above paradigm—or the paradigm was forced upon previous historical situations—in that his proclamation to the people of his hometown of Mecca (today in western Saudi Arabia) was met with rejections and ultimately persecution. The Qur’an offers consolation to the Prophet for this negative response on the part of his kinsmen, but this attitude gradually changed as the early Muslim community moved to Medina (about 150 miles to the north of Mecca) where they were able to establish an independent base. Increasingly after this time, the attitude of the Qur’an became more and more harsh towards those who did not (and still do not) accept the message. Finally they are given no choice but to either repent or be fought and killed by the Muslims. Probably the most problematic element of Islam as it has developed through history is its ruling or dominationist imperative. As we will detail in a later section, according to the traditional understanding, Islam must always be seen to be dominant and superior. As a tradition in the authoritative collection of al-Bukhari (d. 869) states: “Islam is to be dominant, never to be dominated.” Muslim fighters are to fight the jihad for the purpose of ruling and domination alone:

! 90

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

“A man came to the Messenger of God [Muhammad] saying: Some men fight for plunder, others fight for distinction, others fight to show off; which of these is truly fighting for God? He [Muhammad] said: Whoever fights to make the Word of God [the Qur’an] the highest is fighting for God. “ For this reason there is such a strong connection between Islam and power. Qur’an 61:9 says, expressing this feeling of political triumphalism: “It is He [God] who sent His Apostle [Muhammad] forth with the guidance and the religion of truth, to make it triumph over every religion, even though the idolaters may be averse.” In the next section we will detail how this triumph was achieved, but one cannot understand Islam until one realizes how strong within the faith is the necessity to demonstrate worldly power and success. History is crucial to understanding contemporary Islam, as many of the norms and fundamentals of the faith are taken from its historical experience. Most important is the history of the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632) and the experience of the great Muslim conquests (approximately 634-743). During this time, for the most part, Islam and Muslims enjoyed tremendous worldly success. From the control of the oasis of Medina (today in western Saudi Arabia, close to the Red Sea) in 622, to the domination of the Arabian Peninsula, to the conquest of most of the Mediterranean basin north and West through Syria and Egypt, to North Africa, Spain, Sicily and southern France, and east through Iraq, the Iranian Plateau towards Central Asia, and southeast towards India, the Islamic conquests are some of the most impressive ever witnessed in history. Even more impressive is the fact that today fourteen centuries later almost all of this territory (the “core lands of Islam”) remains Muslim, and much of it is culturally and linguistically Arab. Comparisons with the other great empires of history are striking: the Roman, British and Spanish empires also established themselves over tremendous tracts of territory and maintained their cultural and linguistic domination for centuries after the end of their rule, but their conquests were achieved over a period of centuries as well. Both Napoleon and Hitler managed to conquer similarly large areas, but neither was able to hold on to their conquests. The Mongols matched the Muslim conquests as well, but their cultural and linguistic domination was very shortlived. Perhaps only the conquests of Alexander the Great (d. 333 B.C.E.) are comparable in scope and lasting significance to those of the Muslims.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !91

The successful career of the Prophet Muhammad and the subsequent Islamic conquests constitute proof for many Muslims of the validity of the faith. This period of time is the ideal age, the one many seek (unrealistically) to recreate. Therefore, it is necessary to describe the key events that took place during this time period. After the Prophet Muhammad received his initial revelations approximately in 610, his initial small number of converts (mostly from his immediate family, friends or from the local slave community) came under a good deal of persecution from the pagan majority of Mecca. During this period of his ministry, which lasted until 622, the Muslims were forbidden (according to the Qur’an) to fight back. In 622 the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim community moved to the oasis town of Medina, about 150 miles to the north of Mecca, where there was another small community of Muslims. This move, known in Arabic as the hijra, was the most decisive event heralding that Islam would become a success, as it gave the Muslim community access to a secure base from which to expand. The following ten years until the Prophet Muhammad died in 632 were ones of war. The Muslims during this time fought five major campaigns against their former tormentors in Mecca, a pair of unsuccessful raids against the Byzantines in Syria-Palestine (heralding the future conquests in that area), and approximately 85 minor campaigns against Jews or Bedouin tribesmen in the regions surrounding Mecca and Medina. The five major campaigns were a mixed bag from a military standpoint. Badr (624) was a victory for the Muslims, Uhud (625) was a defeat, the Khandaq (627) was a draw, the taking of Mecca (630) was a victory, but the Battle of Hunayn (630) immediately following it was only a very narrow victory. For the most part the Prophet Muhammad’s other battles were either victories or else they were sufficient to overawe and intimidate the Bedouin. The four campaigns against the Jewish tribes of Medina or the area surrounding it (624, 626, 627, 628) were all successes that were clearly all waged with the objective of achieving easy victories after reverses or inconclusive campaigns against tougher foes. In most cases the Jewish tribe was required to either go into exile or assume a subordinate role; in 627 the Prophet Muhammad massacred the males of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe (about 400-500) and converted the remaining members. Only the two campaigns against the Byzantines were losses that were not immediately followed up by victories. Altogether, the number of the Prophet Muhammad’s campaigns (close to 90) is an impressive one, averaging as it does approximately nine campaigns per year in an area of the world

! 92

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

where fighting is usually confined to a short time each year because of the unfavorable climatic conditions. The most important aspect of the Prophet Muhammad’s numerous campaigns is the fact that a great deal of theological significance was placed upon victory, and conversely a great deal of explanation was needed for defeat. Given the mixed bag of victories, defeats and draws described above, it is hardly surprising that the Qur’an is a record of both exultation and despair. It is in the verses of the Qur’an that we find the most definitive exposition of the doctrine of jihad. Jihad is a word that defies literal or easy translation. Most commonly it is translated as “holy war” with a comparison made to the Christian wars of the Crusades. It perhaps could be more accurately translated as “war that one wages with the goal of achieving God’s favor or working His will upon the earth.” It is most literally “war as a spiritual exercise.” Since the Qur’an was revealed progressively over the 22 year period of the Prophet Muhammad’s ministry, it is not surprising that the holy book speaks with a number of different voices on the question of jihad (as it does on a wide range of subjects). Muslims early on solved the difficulty of these apparent contradictions by arranging the Qur’an into categories of verses that were revealed for a particular time or stage in the Prophet Muhammad’s ministry, versus those that were revealed towards the end of his life and are binding upon the Muslim community for all time. Many of the most important pronouncements on the subject of jihad can be found in the last (chronologically speaking) revealed suras (chapters) of the Qur’an. One of the most important verses concerning jihad is recorded in a late sura of the Qur’an, and represents a salvific covenant between God and man with regard to fighting: “God has bought from the believers their lives and their wealth in return for Paradise: they fight in the way of God, kill and are killed. That is a true promise from Him in the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur’an; and who fulfills His promise better than God?” [Qur’an 9:111] This powerful statement provides an assurance in terms of a business contract specifying precisely what is incumbent upon each party. This promise is backed up by one of the most famous verses in the Qur’an, the Verse of the Sword (Qur’an 9:5) usually dated to the last year of Muhammad’s life (631):

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !93

“Then, when the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, take them [as captives], besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every point of observation. If they repent afterwards, perform the prayer and pay the alms, then release them. God is truly All-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 9:5) While it is true that this verse was revealed in the context of the early Muslim community fighting the pagan Arabs that surrounded them (to whom the Qur’an had granted a grace period of four months to repent in the previous verses), the “idolaters” during the coming centuries were interpreted as “Christians” (because of the Muslim rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity). The Verse of the Sword allows only for acceptance of Islam after which tolerance can be extended to non-believers, and constitutes the basis for a general waging of jihad without any apparent boundaries other than those dictated by military defeat on the part of the Muslims. According to the generally accepted view the Verse of the Sword abrogates all others which contradict it. In accordance with the salvific covenant mentioned above, the Qur’an also developed an intricate theory of martyrdom that aided the process of fighting immensely. As Qur’an 3:169 says “And do not think those who have been killed in the way of God [jihad] as dead; they are rather living with their Lord, well-provided for.” While in Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism martyrdom is largely one of passively receiving persecution and perhaps death, Muslims are allowed and even encouraged to actively seek out circumstances under which martyrdom is likely to occur. Since the first centuries of Islam were those of large-scale conquests, the most obvious place to find martyrdom was on the battlefield. Thus we find Yazid b. Shajara (who was the commander of the Muslim armies during the time of Mu`awiya, the fifth Muslim caliph, reigned 661-80) saying: “Swords are the keys to paradise; when a man advances upon the enemy, the angels say: ‘O God, help him!’ and when he retreats, they say: ‘O God, forgive him!’ The first drop of blood dripping from the sword brings forgiveness with it for every sin, and two houris come down to wipe the dust off of his face, saying: ‘Your time has come!’ and he says to them: ‘No, the time has come for you!’ [i.e., because he will be with them in paradise].” Because according to this jihad ideology salvation came from the process of fighting and dying in the cause of Islam, we find that people would often fight with the purpose of redemption or to expiate their sins:

! 94

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

“The slain [in jihad] are three [types of] men: a believer, who struggles with himself and his possessions in the path of God, such that when he meets the enemy [in battle] he fights them until he is killed. This martyr (shahid) is tested, [and is] in the camp of God under His throne; the prophets do not exceed him [in merit] except by the level of prophecy. [Then] a believer, committing offenses and sins against himself, who struggles with himself and his possessions in the path of God, such that when he meets the enemy [in battle] he fights until he is killed. This cleansing wipes away his offenses and his sins—behold the sword wipes [away] sins!—and he will be let into heaven from whatever gate he wishes...[Then] a hypocrite, who struggles with himself and his possessions in the path of God, such that when he meets the enemy [in battle] he fights until he is killed. This [man] is in hell since the sword does not wipe away hypocrisy.” Most interesting from this tradition, which is taken from the earliest book on the subject of jihad (that of `Abdallah b. al-Mubarak, d. 797) is the redemptive process of the sinning yet repentant believer (the second of the three described in the tradition). For him the fighting cleanses away his previous offenses and ensures his entrance into heaven. Eventually, the very act of fighting (no matter what the motivation) or even the willingness to head towards a battlefield were sufficient to provide the Muslim with a blanket forgiveness for his sins: “When a fighter goes out in the path of God, his sins are placed on the door post of his house, and when he leaves it [the house] behind, he leaves all of his sins; not even [so much as] as the wing of a mosquito stays on him.”

In other words, his sins exist in something of a suspended animation as long as he is fighting the jihad. With such attitudes it is little wonder that the Muslims were able to conquer as much as they did. Of course, it is very probable that the majority of the early Muslims did not fight with such spiritually elevated motivations in mind. There were many others available. Many Muslims gained fabulous wealth because of the conquests. Apocalyptic traditions from this time say that if a man saw 100 dinars (a dinar being approximately a week’s wage) on the ground, he would not bother to pick it up. The attitude of success

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !95

and wealth being part of the faith became part of the Muslim tradition (although there is an equally strong attitude of personal denial and asceticism as well). Along with the wealth, there were tremendous numbers of prisoners who became slaves. The Qur’an provides for the prisoners either to be kept as slaves, ransomed for money or to be killed. Most were accorded the first two options, and the capture of prisoners became one of the primary economic supports of the jihad, and eventually of the Muslim empire. As the historian Michael McCormick has demonstrated it was this trade in prisoners who became slaves, the purchase of slaves from Europe together with numerous slave raids into sub-Saharan Africa that formed the basis for the economy of the entire empire. Not only was this trade economically fundamental to Muslim states, but militarily as well, since many of the male slaves were converted, trained as soldiers and used to fight their relatives in Europe and elsewhere. This system created something of a Muslim military elite ruling large numbers of Christians, Jews and others, and using a large number of slaves for both labor and military action. This leads us to the question of the interpretation of the conquests. Again, a foundational tradition in this regard is to be found in Ibn al-Mubarak’s Kitab al-jihad: “Behold! God sent me [= Muhammad] with a sword, just before the Hour [of Judgment], and placed my daily sustenance beneath the shadow of my spear, and humiliation and contempt on those who oppose me.” The importance of this tradition can hardly be overstated. It is a very concise exposition of the attitudes of the early Muslim community towards the conquests and towards their purpose in the world. It expresses the significance of the time of the Muslim conquests (just before the end of the world, the Hour of Judgment) as well as the relationship between the Muslims and the conquered peoples. Contemporary Muslim radical groups have noted the significance of this tradition, and Usama b. Ladin cites it in the very first paragraph of his “World Islamic Front Declaration of War against Zionists and Crusaders.” According to the tradition, the purpose of the Muslim in this world is to fight until the world comes to an end when God judges it. The Muslim army receives its daily sustenance beneath the shadow of the spear, a clear hint that food and other necessities were supplied by the subject populations as part of their tribute. This fact kept the Muslims free to fight.

! 96

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Unending victory is also predicted by the tradition, as “humiliation and contempt” the lot of those who oppose the Muslims. This brings us to the question of the theological weight given to victory in battle. Many faiths have tried to portray their victories as those of God or to demonstrate that their believers are working the will of God. In the Qur’an we find a high level of divine participation in the process of fighting; for example, 8:17 says: “It was not you who slew them, but God; and when you threw it was actually God who threw.” This attitude, which was continued and exaggerated even more in the Muslim jihad and apocalyptic traditions, has contributed to a continual state of war between Islam and the rest of the world. This last statement does not mean that times when peace has prevailed between Muslim states and nonMuslim states or on an individual level between Muslims and non-Muslims have been entirely absent. Usually, however, these times of peace have been limited in time and scope, and have not brought about a change in the warlike attitudes of the Muslim side, nor has a peace been instrumental in conferring legitimacy upon the non-Muslim side. Peace is an unnatural state for Islam. For the most part, there has been peace only when the Muslim side has been at a disadvantage, not because of any fundamental acceptance of peace as a naturally attractive state. One of the major developments of contemporary Islam are the numerous groups usually classified generically as “radical Muslims.” The growth of radical Islam during the past 30 years has been greatly facilitated by the perceived failure of Muslim societies to achieve modernization, multiple defeats by Israel and other western countries (the United States, India, Ethiopia), and the perception that the Muslim religious establishment is collaborative and submissive to illegitimate secular governments. Among radical Muslims there are local groups that have the aim of transforming their societies into Islamic societies, there are “resistance movements” formed with the express purpose of “liberating” or detaching a given territory and then transforming it, and there are globalists, who seek to rally Muslims worldwide to establish a pan-Islamic state (al-Qa`ida). These groups have several characteristics in common. One of the foundational attitudes is that there is only one Islam, and that this Islam (the radical version) is the solution to all problems that Muslims, both at a local and at societal level, face. The intolerance of radical Muslims towards their more traditional brethren (mostly Sufis) is one of the attitudes that set them apart from classical Islam, where it was comparatively rare to make accusations of “heresy.” Today, the version of Islam that has been favored by radical Muslims has been derived from the Wahhabi sect, which itself originates

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !97

from the Hanbali school of law (the most hardline of the four Sunni Muslim traditional schools of law), and are usually known as Salafis or on the street takfiris (from takfir, the accusation leveled against apparent Muslims that they are apostate). Wahhabism is reductionist in nature, and decisively rejects popular customs in Islam (festivals, intercession of saints or holy men, etc), as well as any version of Sufism. Among the tenets of radical Islam is the belief in a pan-Muslim state which hypothetically will encompass all Muslims. Although this messianic vision is pushed most strongly by the globalist radical Muslim groups previously mentioned, it is subscribed to by all radical groups (whereas for other non-radical Muslims this reunification is less important). This state should be ruled by a caliph (a legitimate successor to the Prophet Muhammad) who will be (hypothetically) elected by Muslims and form a government. After this system is in place then Muslims worldwide will be able to swear allegiance. This is a religious obligation that has not been met by Sunni Muslims since the time when the last Ottoman caliph was deposed by Kamal Attaturk in 1924. According to one often cited tradition: Whoever dies while he is not under obedience [to a caliph] dies the death of the Jahiliyya [as a non-Muslim], and if he turns against it after he has sworn (lit. after it is around his neck), then he has no excuse before God [at the final judgment]. Because of the absolute nature of the punishment and damnation involved here many Muslims see a need to re-establish the caliphate. Radical Muslims are the only ones who seem willing to apply the necessary force to compel Muslims to accept a given candidate —one should note that Mullah `Umar Mujahid (the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan) proclaimed himself to be amir al-mu’minin, a caliphal title in 1996—or have the spiritual prestige to give the office meaning. Ultimately, the desire of the radicals is to unite all Muslims under this one person. Thus, Muslims from dozens if not hundreds of differing languages and cultures would be a unity. It goes without saying that this vision is neither very realistic in the sense of being practically applicable given the multitude of differences among contemporary Muslims, nor could it be achieved without the application of force. In order to achieve their goals radical Muslims must use force and terror, which is another of their defining characteristics. Usually their groups are not large enough to challenge the semi-secular and authoritarian regimes in the Arab or Muslim worlds, and since their means of proclamation are circumscribed they often use terror to

! 98

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

communicate their message (both to the Muslim population and to the non-Muslim media). The use of terror is not new to Islam; it is found already in the Qur’an and the early traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. One of the most frequently cited verses in this regard is Qur’an 8:60: And make ready for them whatever you can of fighting men and horses, to terrify thereby the enemies of Allah and your enemy, as well as others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows well. Everything that you spend in the path of Allah will be repaid in full, and you will never be wronged. The early Muslim conquerors practiced psychological warfare against their enemies and sought to surround their borders with fear (presumably of a Muslim counter-attack) so that anyone who thought to attack the Muslims would desist. Muhammad is said to have stated: “I was aided [by God] with a fear in the hearts of my enemies to the distance of a month’s travel.” In other words, all those enemies living within the distance of a month’s travel from the early Muslims would feel this terror. Contemporary radical Muslims frequently cite this verse and this tradition, and complain that the enemies of Islam do not feel this fear or terror any longer, and therefore it is necessary to terrorize the latter in order to win back the respect they believe Islam deserves. In many quarters of the Muslim world this message has a strong appeal. One of the methods by which radical Muslims have gained a great deal of sympathy throughout the Muslim world is their clear dedication to the application of the shari`a. Over the past 30 years the number of Muslims living under the shari`a law has grown considerably. However, radical Muslims have a rather Protestant attitude towards their tradition and seek to radically reinterpret it (hence their appellation of “radical” Muslims). For the most part they do this because of the obviously problematic tradition that contains a vast number of scientifically impossible or ludicrous elements (most obviously in the fields of medicine, such as the so-called “Prophetic Medicine”, the reading of which makes modern radicals very uncomfortable). One of the reasons for this rejection of tradition is that a dominant feature of radical Islam is its fixation upon technology and science. Radical Muslims are often very well educated, and a high percentage of the leadership has either traveled to or studied in the West. Frequently followers of this movement are drawn from technical or hard science fields. It is clear that these people are most affected by the envy of the West, and

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !99

are keenly aware that Muslim countries lag behind it in these areas that are key to modernity. From their classical Islamic heritage they know that for centuries Muslim civilization was superior to that of Western Europe, and feel the need to regain that superiority. One of the most commonly cited Qur’anic verses in this regard is 3:110, which states: “You were the best nation brought forth to mankind, bidding the right and forbidding the wrong, and believing in God.” Even though the verse appears to be speaking of moral and ethical superiority because of the lengthy Muslim experience as one of the (if not the principal) dominant cultures in the world, this verse is usually cited to demonstrate that superiority. As Sulayman Abu Ghayth, the spokesman for alQa`ida, stated in June 2002: “Those who were surprised, astonished and did not expect [the Sept. 11 attack], those simply do not know the reality of humanity and human nature, or the effect of tyranny and oppression upon its feelings...they apparently thought that tyranny breeds submission and that force yields resignation... those have missed the mark twice: once, because they are ignorant of the reality of derision towards a person, and another time because they do not know the ability of a person to achieve victory. This is [with regard to] any person, let alone to one who believes in God as Lord, in Islam as a religion and in Muhammad as Prophet and Messenger. [He] knows that his religion refuses lowliness and does not permit humiliation for him, and rejects degradation. How could it, when he knows that his community [Islam] was brought forth to be at the center of leadership and trail blazing, at the center of hegemony and domination, at the center of giving and receiving?” This citation and many others like it demonstrate that radical Islam feels very strongly the ruling imperative of Islam, and that violence is the primary method by which it refuses the subordinate position it feels that the world has assigned for it. For this reason, among many others, radical Islam feels a common antipathy to the United States as the representative of both the “West” and as the epitome of all its values. Its very existence detracts from any sense of Muslim superiority and its civilization and culture constitutes a temptation for Muslims worldwide (according to the understanding of radical Muslims) that must be confronted and overcome. At every point in the ideology of radical Islam, it is the American domination of the world that makes realization of their vision impossible. It forbids the creation of a united Muslim state, it protests against the intolerant elements of Muslim law, it negates the superiority

! 100

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

of Islamic civilization, and it keeps Muslims backward in technology and science (in addition to other political differences). The reasons for the radical Islamic hatred of the U.S. go far beyond the issue of Israel. Although there are examples of radical quietistic movements (e.g., the Egyptian Takfir wa-Hijra from the 1970s) for the most part radical Islam is violent in expression and seeks to revive jihad against non-Muslims. According to `Abdallah `Azzam (one of Usama b. Ladin’s mentors, assassinated in 1989): “The life of the Muslim umma [community] is solely dependent on the ink of its scholars and the blood of its martyrs. What is more beautiful than the writing of the umma’s history with both the ink of a scholar and his blood… the extent to which the number of martyred scholars increases is the extent to which nations are delivered from their slumber, rescued from their decline and awoken from their sleep. History does not write its lines except with blood. Glory does not build its lofty edifices except with skulls. Honor and respect cannot be established except on a foundation of cripples and corpses. Empires, distinguished peoples, states and societies cannot be established except with examples. Indeed, those who think they can change reality or change societies without blood, sacrifices and invalids, without pure innocent souls, do not understand the essence of this din [Islam] and they do not know the method of the best of Messengers [Muhammad].” This violence is intrinsic to the movement because of its usefulness in differentiating between “true” and “false” Muslims by using takfir. Radical Muslims according to their own thinking are merely “Muslims”; they do not accept any further differentiations. There is only one Islam, according to their view; therefore it is the larger body of Muslims that have veered from “true” Islam. The problem that attitude begets is that there is no objective method to tell “true” Muslims from “false” Muslims, except on the battlefield. For this reason, radical Muslims seek to involve themselves in conflicts or even to provoke them as a means by which new boundaries can be drawn. It is not enough in their minds that someone speaks the Muslim confession of faith, be born a Muslim or be a nominal or a cultural Muslim. A “true” Muslim is one who commits his life to the struggle and who is trying to make Islam the dominant faith in the world either through proclamation or through jihad.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !101

For this reason suicide attacks or martyrdom operations have become so crucial to radical Islam. Although suicide attacks are almost without military value, since they are really only effective against civilians or civilian targets, they have great religious value and are very expressive of what radical Islam needs to communicate to the larger Muslim community as well as to the world. According to radical Muslims, Islam has been suffering from humiliation and degradation (a point concerning which there is wide agreement among all Muslims) and that its peaceable nature has led to a situation where Muslims are taken advantage of worldwide. The self-sacrificial nature of the suicide attack demonstrates the personal courage (at least to many Muslims) of the one performing this action, and highlights the value of the belief for which the attack was performed. The suicide attack provides an artificial sense of a balance of terror because in striking easy non-military targets it gains quick victories that for the Muslim audience are very emotionally satisfying. Additionally the suicide attack invites the revulsion of the outside world and demonstrates the Muslim rejection of nonMuslim values thus creating the boundaries radical Muslims wish to re-establish. It is interesting (and disturbing) to note how suicide attacks/martyrdom operations are justified according to Muslim law. Since these attacks were first introduced among Sunni Muslims a large number of legal opinions (fatwas) have been issued to support them. It is important to note that in the context of Muslim law introduction of anything entirely new is problematic. Since by all accounts suicide attacks were unknown in Sunni Muslim law previous to the 1990s, we can watch how such a practice came to be legitimized. Writers of fatwas on suicide attacks start out with the Qur’an, especially with several verses that to them indicate a tacit acceptance of such activities. From Qur’an 2:96 we read: “Indeed, you will find them [the evil doers] of all people the most attached to life, even more than those who associated other gods with God. Every one of them wishes to live for one thousand years. This long life, however, will not spare them the punishment.” For radical Muslims (and for many other Muslims) this verse epitomizes what they see and dislike about the West. They see themselves as people who have nothing to lose, from whom everything has been taken by the tyranny of non-Muslims. At the same time, they perceive the West especially as believing in nothing, having no values

! 102

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

other than materialistic ones. Therefore, since their enemies desire life, it is important for the radical Muslims to deny them life. This achieves several purposes: it highlights their own lack of material goods and emphasizes their certainty in achieving heaven, and demonstrates the meaninglessness of the material values upon which the West according to their perception has based itself. Another Qur’anic verse that is used by fatwas justifying suicide attacks is “And some people sell themselves for the sake of God’s favor. God is kind to His servants” (Qur’an 2:207). Unquestionably this verse encourages the idea that a suicide attacker is one who is self-sacrificing in a way that puts him in a different and higher category than all other “martyrs.” Indeed, a number of radical and even mainstream Muslim religious figures have taken to calling suicide attacks “the pinnacle of the summit of jihad,” as if to remove the questionable religious and ethical practice from all discussion. No mention of the innocent civilian casualties murdered by the suicide attacker is allowed to penetrate into the spiritual experience that the “martyr” goes through as he or she carries out whatever operation they have planned: “There is a profound difference between one who commits suicide—because of his unhappiness, lack of patience, weakness or absence of faith and has been threatened with Hell-fire—and the self-sacrificer who embarks on the operation out of strength of faith and conviction, and to bring victory to Islam, by sacrificing his life for the upliftment of Allah’s word.” This declaration is taken from the “Islamic Ruling on the Permissibility of Martyrdom Operations” which was a legal ruling written for the Chechen rebels by Yusuf al-`Ayyiri (leader of al-Qa`ida in Saudi Arabia, killed 2003). One can see the exclusive focus upon the spiritual benefits of suicide attacks, and the necessity to differentiate between these types of operations and mere suicide (which is comparatively rare in Muslim societies). Clearly the goal is one of personal spiritual benefit to the “martyr”, but the attack must also express the goals of radical Islam and fit its self-perception. Another part of the goal is to radically reinterpret the Muslim laws of war in accordance with the perceived necessities of the present time. Although one can be amazed at the close relationship between faith and warfare throughout Islamic history —Islam is the only religion where cowardice on the battlefield is actually a grave sin (cf. Qur’an 8:16)—it is also true that in classical literature jihad was a closely regulated form

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !103

of warfare with harsh punishments meted out to those who looted, mutilated the bodies of enemy soldiers or raped. In the present-day jihad we see this regulation swiftly being eroded by none other than the religious authorities of Islam themselves. A good example of this is the question of killing civilians, specifically women and children, who are frequently the target of suicide attacks. The traditions in this matter are clear: the authoritative collection of al-Bukhari (d. 869-70) states baldly that women and children (and other non-combatants) are not to be harmed in jihad. Radical Muslims are quite open about the goals of the jihad. On a website associated with al-Qa`ida (alneda.com), we read in a document entitled “The Goals of the Jihad”: “Among them [the goals] is the subjection of the people of the jizya to the laws of Islam, forbidding them from declaring their faith openly, from any type of interest [economy] or fornication or anything like that because these circumstances from their very nature constitute a temptation (tuftan) for the Muslim away from his religion. God commanded that the jihad be in force until ‘temptation is removed’ [Qur’an 8:39]... Removal of temptation, exaltation of the Muslims and humiliation of the infidels—all of this is the goal of the jihad.” Therefore, from trying to liberate subjugated or persecuted Muslims—a possibly laudable goal—we quickly see the real end-point of jihad: worldwide domination under the guise of “removing temptation.” Apparently, according to the above analysis, Islam is not deemed to be strong enough to handle the possibility of anyone in the world doing anything that would be contrary to the Divine Law (the shari`a). The use of terror is the method to achieve this end. Alneda’s statement continues, citing a medieval Muslim commentator (Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, d. 1350) to say: “There is nothing more beloved of God than His representative’s antagonizing His enemy and enraging the latter.” To that end, Qur’an 8:60 states: “And make ready for them whatever you can of fighting men and horses, to terrify thereby the enemies of Allah and your enemy, as well as others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows well.” As previously stated, this process of fighting will force moderate or nominal Muslims to make a choice: either to join the fighting Muslims or to join their opponents. All of this leads up to the final conquest of the world:

! 104

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

“Jihad will only cease when the entire world is submissive to Islam and has embraced its creed, other than the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] and Zoroastrians. As for these when they have paid the jizya and are bound by the authoritative laws of Islam: their existence will be one of humiliation and degradation. But even though Muslims will cease their jihad, and not harm them, even protecting them from their enemies, the Islamic jihad will not cease in this lifetime, since Satan will continue to lead some of humanity astray, and the struggle between right and wrong as the way of God will never cease until human existence ceases on this world.” Thus conquest constitutes a principal part of radical Islam, and is the apocalyptic and messianic vision it has for Islam: the return of the righteous caliphate and Muslim worldwide domination.

Questions 1.

What are the differences between the Muslim doctrine of jihad and the Christian doctrine of the “just war”? When others say that jihad is the same as the sort of conquests that are described in the Bible (e.g., in Joshua) what will we say? 2. How does a Christian respond with love towards those Muslims such as the Nigerian Boko Haram who deliberately send suicide attackers to kill inside churches? When is it appropriate for the Christian to use force to defend the church and when is it not? Can we love those who are trying to kill us? 3. The growth of the church under radical Muslim regimes in Iran and the Sudan has been phenomenal in spite of persecution. Can the church develop a paradigm of how to live and bear witness under other regimes that promote persecution of Christians that will work in states such as Egypt where persecution is increasing? 4. How do we compare “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13 with the Muslim doctrine of martyrdom? SUMMARY The Qur’an, Muhammad’s violence, and the violence of his earliest caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar ibn Khattab) galvanized the spreading of Islam in the early Islamic conquests of the seventh century via militant “offensive jihad” with sights set on global domination that continues to the present day under the aegis of radical Islam. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !105

al-Àliyani, Àli, Ahdaf al-jihad. Trans. Cook, Understanding Jihad, appendix, no. 4, pp. 181-9. Àzzam, Àbdallah, “Martyrs: the Building Blocks of Nations” at azzam.com, in Ithaf al-ìbad bi-fada’il al-jihad. Peshawar: Maktab al-Khidmat, 1990. Bonner, Michael, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. al-Bukhari, Muhammad b. Isma’il (d. 869-70), Sahih. Ed. Àbd al-Àziz b. Baz, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1991 (5 vols). Cook, David, Martyrdom in Islam. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2007. ____ Understanding Jihad. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Fakhry, Majid, The Qur’an: A Modern English Version. London: Garnet Press, 1997. Friedmann, Yohanan, “Islam is Superior,” Jerusalem Quarterly 11 (1979), pp. 36-42 Hafez, Mohammed, Suicide Bombers in Iraq: The Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2007. Hegghammer, Thomas, Jihad in Saudi Arabia. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2010. al-Hindi, al-Muttaqi (d. 1567), Kanz al-ùmmal fi al-aqwal wa-l-afa`l. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risala, 1987 (16 vols). Ibn Abi Shayba, Kitab al-musannaf. Hyderabad: Da’irat al-Maàrif, n.d. Ibn al-Mubarak, Àbdallah (d. 797), Kitab al-jihad. Beirut: Dar al-Talià, 1971. Kister, Meir, “Land Property and Jihad,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 34 (1991), pp. 270-311. ____ “The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986), 61-96. Lawrence, Bruce, Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden. Trans. James Howarth, London: Verso, 2005. McCormick, Michael, The Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce 300-700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Moghadam, Assaf, al-Qaeda, Salafi Jihad and the Diffusion of Suicide Attacks: The Globalization of Martyrdom. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2008. Al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din (d. 1505), Fadl al-jihad. Cairo: Dar al-Fadila, 1988. al-Tirmidhi, Muhammad b. Ìsa (d. 892), al-Jami` al-sahih. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d. (5 vols).

! 106

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

VIDEO LESSON 6 - Jesus in Islam and Christianity    I. Introduction A. Imagine with me for a moment; at name of Jesus there is the image of Genghis Khan B. Imagine a world in which Jesus brings to mind the image of Confucius C. But as a Christian, you find a part of you saying, “It’s nicer, but it’s not right either.” D. What is wrong with both of these pictures of Jesus? They are not historical. E. When faced with multiple conflicting accounts regarding Jesus Christ’s nature and ministry, how can we know that our Christ is the right one? II. Seventh century Arabia and Muhammad A. Amazing revelations about Jesus, AD 610-632 B. First attack: source material for the life of Christ is corrupted (tahrif) 1. Muslims believe the New Testament has been corrupted 2. But the Qur’an itself does not make the claim! 3. Same claim by Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code: Bible is corrupted! 4. Response to both the Qur’an and Brown: a. Manuscript evidence: we have multiple copies of ancient texts, which do not deviate in message or theology. b. 25,000 manuscript fragments c. 230 pre-date the Qur’an

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !107

d. We have no early Qur’anic manuscripts e. We wait over 322 years after Muhammad to establish a complete manuscript of Qur’an f. Muslims hold to different inspiration; Qur’an is perfectly preserved; not a thing is missing. They then apply this standard to the Bible. g. If even the smallest manuscript discrepancy exists, it is corrupted; but NT discrepancies exist as errors in copying. h. No evidence Bible was different before Muhammad’s time than from after 5. 86,000 scriptural quotations from other early church fathers’ writings a. As early as AD 150-200 b. All but eleven verses accounted for in these writings 6. To prove Brown and Muslim’s view of Bible, it must be shown that a. Show us an uncorrupted original b. Show us the corrupted texts c. Show us when the tampering occurred d. Show us the corruptions as distinguished from original 7. Muslims turn to Qur’an for accurate information about Jesus; a book that came 700 years later! C. Second attack: Jesus’ mythical miracles 1. The Qur’an and Islamic traditions present some amazing embellishments 2. Speaks from the cradle: “I am the servant of Allah” (Q19:30) 3. Brings clay bird to life (Infancy Gospel of Thomas)

! 108

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

a. “I am the Son of God” but in Qur’an: “I am the servant of Allah” b. Muhammad and his followers were surrounded by Nestorian and Eastern Christians 4. Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse meeting Jesus and other prophets. It was here Muhammad negotiated with Allah to have five prayers a day. Dome of the Rock commemorates this event. 5. Jesus of the future a. Jihading warrior on Day of Judgment b. Medium height with a reddish complexion c. Comes back to minaret in Damascus d. Destroys all religions but Islam 6. What Jesus are Muslims talking about? A fabricated Islamic Jesus! 7. Qur’an is later source material that we must reject; too far removed from Jesus! D. Third attack: Jesus was not crucified 1. Q4:157, “And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger—they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them . . . they slew him not for certain.” 2. Jews thought they killed Jesus, but did not 3. Substitution took place 4. Moral and philosophical problem with this a. Allah deceived Jesus’ followers, mother and friends? b. 2 billion Christians are deceived today?

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !109

c. Paul thought he was crucified: “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). d. Paul’s argument (Acts 17:16): i. If Jesus rose from the dead, his message is from God ii. Jesus rose from the dead iii. Therefore, his message was from God e. So, how can we be confident that Jesus was crucified? i. Gospels as primary sources: crucifixion in all four ii. Crucifixion confirmed by enemies of early Christians

Tacitus (AD 56-120), Roman historian, Annuls, “a most mischievous superstition.” And referring to Christians: “criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment. . . . Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome ”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100) Jewish War (AD 75-80) and Jewish Histories (early 90s); “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of marvelous deeds — a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Ant. 18:3).

Talmud, later record of rabbinic discussions: “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. . . . he has practiced sorcery  and enticed Israel to apostasy.”

f. This Islamic view must be rejected!

! 110

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

E. Fourth attack: Jesus is not divine and did not claim divinity; he is only a prophet. 1. Show me where Jesus says, “I am God” 2. Q4:171, “O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion . . . The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah . . . So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’—Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God.” 3. Da Vinci Code is a modern challenge: “My dear . . . until that moment in history (when the scriptures were changed), Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.” 4. NT says it differently a. John 1:1-3 Jesus is eternal and creates all things b. Col 1:16-17 c. Acts 7:54-60, Jesus is prayed to d. Mt 12, 14, 18, Jesus received worshipped (only God was to be worshipped, Mk 2:2,8,11; 14:33; 28:9,17; John 9:35-37). e. Jesus omnipresent, Mt 28:20 f. Jesus said, "I AM the Resurrection and the Life," John 11:25 g. Jesus forgives sins in Matthew 9:1-7; Luke 5:20; 7:48 h. Jesus is the image of the invisible God, Heb 1:3 i. Jesus is called God by the New Testament writers, John 20:28; Phil 2:6-11 j. Explicit, John 8:58, ego eimi, I AM, (cf. Ex 3:14) i. Jews understood him

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !111

ii. Legal to stone a man for leading others to idol worship, rebellious son, adultery or rape, medium, and blasphemy iii. John 10:32-33 leaves no doubt k. Why didn’t he just say, “I am God”? His actions declared it. 5. Islam has the view of Jesus it does because of its view of God a. Allah is distant, isolated, secretive, impersonal and capricious b. He only communicates his will c. Muslims speak about a God they fear d. Allah does not love unbelievers e. Yahweh is different from the distant gods of Greek philosophy; he enters time and space to help us; he is the unique creator. f. Jesus walked with Adam and Eve; wrestled with Jacob; accompanied Moses and Israelites; in dwelt the kings and prophets; God in the flesh; Immanuel. g. So, when Muslims ask me “Do you believe Jesus is God?” i. Do I think He is Allah as presented in the Qur’an? No. ii. Do I think Jesus is Yahweh as presented in the whole of the Bible? Yes. iii. The rejection of Christ’s deity fundamentally undermines the one and only foundation and hope for eternal salvation.

! 112

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

III. Conclusion A. All cults begin by distorting and changing the person of Christ. B. Basic problem is they are too far removed from the events of Christ’s life C. Our Scriptures are reliable D. Our faith in and experiences with Christ are reliable E. The best way to defend our faith in Christ is to come to know deeply the Jesus of history    Application: Please go to page 313 and fill out the Video Lesson 5 Application sheet. Group Discussion: A family moves to the house next to yours. After a few days, you discover that it is a Muslim family, and you start a friendly relationship with your new neighbors. They invite you and your family to dine with them and, after dinner, you begin to tell them about Jesus and then the head of the family, a devout Muslim, says the following: "My dear friend, we are Muslims because we truly love Jesus. We respect Him and know that He is the closest prophet to Allah. He never sinned and will come back to the world. The problem is that you believe in a "fabricated" Jesus, product of theological evolution and the historical manipulation of the socalled New Testament. The Qur’an, the revelation sent by Allah after the corruption of the biblical scriptures - is the only book containing the truth about Jesus. If the Bible shows the true Jesus, I want you to show me, answering three questions:

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !113

i. First: In the Qur’an, Jesus performs several miracles that are not recorded in the New Testament. He modeled clay birds and gave them life; newborn, spoke in the cradle, saying: "I am the servant of Allah," plus many other wonderful deeds. How can I believe in "your" Jesus, if none of this is in the Bible? ii. Second: in the Qur’an, Jesus is described as "a word of God," a "spirit of God," "the closest to God," "the only one who never sinned," and many other admirable titles. However, in the Qur’an, Allah rebukes all who say that Jesus is God. Jesus, in the Qur’an, denies being God and, in your Bible, at no time does Jesus say: "I am God, worship me.” How can you believe that Jesus is God if he never said it? How do you expect me to believe in such blasphemy? iii. Third: Allah is righteous, and would never allow the righteous to suffer because the unjust. He himself condemns that in the Qur’an. He would never allow a righteous and pure prophet like Jesus to suffer instead of evil, sinful men. In fact the Qur’an says that , "Jesus was never crucified, nor killed," In addition there are other gospels which are not included in your bible that say that Jesus was not God and did not die on the cross. How do you expect me to believe in Christianity, since Jesus did not die, as you say? What evidence do you have to say that Jesus was crucified? How do you know this was not an invention of Christians?"

! 114

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Jesus the Eternal Son of God David Abernathy David Abernathy has an MA in Biblical Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. He taught Greek, Hebrew, biblical exegesis and sociolinguistics in Kenya, assisted in translation workshops in Nigeria, and has also lived and worked in Mexico. He currently lives in the U.S. and does exegetical research.

Introduction In recent decades there has been a trend among missionary Bible translators working among Muslim people groups to avoid a literal translation of the phrase Son of God because of the negative Muslim reaction. However, the term has tremendous theological significance, both for understanding God’s Trinitarian nature, and understanding the nature of the relationship believers in Christ share as God’s children. This theological significance may be missed if the translation of the Son of God does not clearly indicate that Jesus was truly the Son of God in a real sense; that is, in a sense that is essential to his eternal nature and being. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the significance of the term Son of God in light of historical creeds and biblical theology. Understanding the problem The Qur’an anathematizes anyone daring to say that Jesus is the Son of God; guaranteeing that they will go to hell, possibly even causing the earth and heavens to shake (Q4:165; 5:18; 6:101; 9:30; 17:111; 19:35, 88-92; 23:91). Muslims have traditionally taught that the phrase Son of God can only mean that Christians believe that God produced offspring by a sexual union with a woman. In some parts of the world, it seems nearly impossible to convince devout Muslims that any other meaning is even possible. The presence of the offending term could prevent the translated text from ever getting a hearing, much less transform the thinking of the readers, unless a significant change in understanding is made through a deep move of the Holy Spirit. Missionary Bible translators have long operated under the premise that if the reading audience gets little meaning, no meaning, or the wrong meaning from a passage, then the wording of the passage must be altered in order to solve the problem. Consequently, some translators have opted to use different wording for Son of God in

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !115

order to avoid the wrong meaning Muslims attach to the phrase. Translators reason that since Son of God is a metaphor, a suitable non-metaphorical equivalent can be substituted. Because the Qur’an uses the terms Messiah (al masih) and Word to refer to Jesus, some translators, wanting to avoid the reaction that the prohibited term Son of God causes, choose to use Messiah, Word or God’s beloved in place of Son of God. However, most Christians have understood the phrase Son of God to mean that Jesus actually is God’s eternal, preexistent Son. Changing the phrase to Messiah or Word—or anything else—fails to communicate the reality of this eternal Father-Son relationship. The meaning of the term Son of God Metaphorical or metaphysical? One of the arguments translators use for substituting Son of God is that the term is considered a metaphor, and as such, can be altered to communicate the same intended non-metaphorical meaning, whatever the metaphor’s meaning is determined to be for the context. The rationale is that since Jesus does not have a divine mother, he cannot literally be the Son of God; so it is assumed that the only other option is that he is Son in some metaphorical sense. That is, if the sonship is not physical, it can only be metaphorical. No other alternatives are recognized. But when talking about the persons of the Trinity, there is a third category in addition to the physical and the metaphorical: the metaphysical. Christ’s sonship is a metaphysical and essential sonship that is eternal and real; it is the essence of who he is eternally. As St. Hilary of Poitiers put it, “He is the only-begotten, perfect, eternal Son of the unbegotten, perfect, eternal Father.” 106 The statement that “God sent his own Son” means that Jesus was already the Son of God when he was sent; that is, Jesus is the eternal, preexistent Son of God. The church has always understood Christ’s sonship in this way, going far beyond metaphor. If Son of God simply were a metaphor, it would originate in human relationships—with divine relationships described in terms of the human. This implies that God is at a loss for ways to describe his being, and can only draw from human experiences to do so. This is not the case. Just as a computer hard drive must be formatted before data can be written to it, so the human experience and personality is stamped with certain eternal patterns enabling us to understand something of the essential nature of the God who created us in his image. The Father-Son relation is an eternal pattern, inherent in the very nature of the persons of the Trinity. It is a pattern God has built into human experience in order to teach us something about himself. Paul says, “I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name” (Eph 3:14-15). Paul is saying earthly fatherhood has its origin in God himself. Most Reformation confessions of faith assert the Son is eternally begotten 106

! 116

Hilary, De Trinitate 3.3.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

of the Father, as do many of the ancient creeds. Most of the doctrinal statements of mission organizations, Christian academic institutions, or denominational church bodies that are conservative enough to have a doctrinal statement, will assert, in one form or another, that God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then fatherhood and sonship are an eternal aspect of their relationship: God is Father eternally and Jesus is the eternal Son. Metaphor, archetype, and inherent sonship Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck argued that when we refer to God as Father, we are not using a metaphor, as though fatherhood is primarily an attribute of humanity, and so referring to God only in a secondary or derived sense.107 Bavinck said the relation is reversed: “God is Father in the real and complete sense of the term.”108 His fatherhood pertains to his eternal essence, and fatherhood on earth is but a dim reflection or shadow of God’s eternal fatherhood. The eternal character of God’s fatherhood implies the eternal character of Christ’s divine sonship.109 Fatherhood and sonship are archetypes: eternal patterns that correspond to realities encountered within the temporal and natural realm. Human fatherhood and sonship are, by comparison, faint copies of the eternal Father-Son relation.110 The nouns Father and Son have their proper biblical meaning only in relation to each other; that is, the Father is called the Father of the Son, and the Son is the Son of the Father.111 Richard Bauckham comments in regard to Jesus’ revelation of himself as being one with the Father (John 10:30): The terms Father and Son entail each other. The Father is called Father only because Jesus is his Son, and Jesus is called Son only because he is the Son of his divine Father. Each is essential to the identity of the other. So to say that Jesus and the Father are one is to say that the unique divine identity comprises the relationship in which the Father is who he is only in relation to the Son and vice versa.112

107

Herman Bavinck 1977 (1977). The Doctrine of God. (307) Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust.

108

Athanasius, commenting on Eph 3:15, said, “God does not make man his pattern, but rather, since God alone is properly and truly Father, we men are called fathers of our own children, for of him every fatherhood in heaven and earth is named” (Contra Arianos 1.7.23). 109

Herman Bavinck. In John Murray (1982). Collected Writings of John Murray: Studies in Theology (v. 4, 66). Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust. 110

Merrill C. Tenney (1981). The Gospel of John. (196). EBC Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

111

Robert Jensen. “The Trinity in the Bible.” Concordia Theological Quarterly. 68(3–4): 204.; cf. Murray, Collected writings 66. Calvin, citing Augustine, says that Christ is called God with respect to himself, but Son with respect to the Father; the Father is called God with respect to himself, but Father with respect to the Son (Institutes I, xiii, 19). 112 Richard Bauckham (2008). God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of divine identity (106). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !117

Only God is Father in the fullest sense for he was the first father. Bavinck went on to conclude that whoever refuses to honor God as Father shows more disrespect toward the Father than the one who does not acknowledge him as creator. Douglas Kelly believes it is significant that both the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed mention the fatherhood of God before speaking of him as creator; that is, he was always Father, but he was not always creator.113 This understanding of God’s eternal fatherhood is common; Athanasius elaborated the point in the fourth century.114 The epistle to the Hebrews illustrates the concept of archetypes. The earthly tabernacle was a copy that corresponded to a heavenly reality (Heb 9:11, 23). Likewise, Melchizedek, as a priest and king, is like the Son of God. The writer is not using the Jewish tabernacle as a pattern for heavenly realities, nor is he taking Melchizedek as a pattern for Jesus’ ministry. He does exactly the reverse. The earthly tabernacle and the earthly priest-king, Melchizedek, display certain similarities to the preexistent heavenly realities. Note also that the Father-Son-Son of God conceptual cluster, which occurs several hundred times in the New Testament, occurs far more frequently and is distributed far more widely than normal biblical metaphors. The biblical authors do not indicate that Christ’s sonship is metaphorical. They viewed it as substantive and real in the fullest sense. This is also true of the sonship of believers. 1 John 3:1 says, “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!” We do not need to assume the term Son of God must be metaphorical. It does not have to be understood in a literal-physical sense. There is an eternal and metaphysical sense in which Jesus is the divine Son, the Son of God. Divine sonship as prototype for humans becoming God’s sons and daughters Many scholars state it is Christ’s natural and eternal sonship that leads to our adoption as sons and daughters of God. The mission of God’s Son was to bring others into a relationship with God as his children.115 It is Jesus’ uncreated, natural, eternal sonship that makes all the other sons of God possible.116 Larry Hurtado notes that in Paul’s view, God’s purpose in sending his Son was that we might become sons by 113 Douglas F. Kelly (2008). Systematic Theology: Grounded in Holy Scripture and Understood in the Light of the Church (449). Fearn, Rossshire, Scotland: Mentor. 114 Athanasius said, “It belongs to the Godhead alone that the Father is properly father, and the Son properly Son, and in them, and them only, does it hold that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever Son.” Against the Arians: Discourse Four, Ch. VI, section 21. http:// www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.i.iv.html (accessed 2/3/11). 115 George Eldon Ladd (1974). In Donald A. Hagner (Ed.). A Theology of the New Testament. (458) (Rev. ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 116 Donald G. Bloesch (1978). Essentials of Evangelical Theology: God, Authority, and Salvation (126). San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row. Calvin notes that although God was never Father to either angels or men, but only with regard to his only begotten son, he nevertheless enables sinful men to become God’s sons by free adoption through Christ, who is the Son of God by nature, and who always possessed sonship (Institutes II, xiv, 5).

! 118

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

adoption.117 In Romans 8:29 and Galatians 4:4-6, Paul shows that it is through the work of the preexistent Son whom God sent to die for us that we are adopted as God’s sons.118 The Son leads other sons to salvation as well as to the inheritance associated with sonship; this inheritance is both his and theirs.119 This means that Jesus, as the divine Son, whose sonship is not derived from another, is the prototype and agent granting others the right to be God’s sons. The sonship of Christians is derived from Jesus’ own sonship and patterned after it,120 and the pattern of that sonship is obedience.121 Jesus mediates for believers a new relationship with God, bringing them into the same intimate relationship with God that they may call him Abba.122 Through the Son of God, believers are accepted as children of God, calling his Father, their Father. 123 Dumitru Staniloae says, The revelation of the Trinity, occasioned by the incarnation and earthly activity of the Son, has no other purpose than to draw us after grace, to draw us through the Holy Spirit into the filial relationship the Son has with the Father.124 Further, Staniloae characterizes this relationship as one of eternal love and communion.125 According to J. N. D. Kelly, it is through the incarnation that the Son of God revealed the heart of God to the human race. On their behalf and in their place, he gave the perfect filial responses required by God so they could know the Father as the Son

117

Larry W. Hurtado (1993). “Son of God” (905–906). In Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Eds.). Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity; cf. Gerald O’Collins (1999). The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity (62). New York, NY: Paulist Press. 118

I. Howard Marshall (1980). “Titles of Jesus Christ” (778). In J. D. Douglas (Ed.). The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 2. Downers Grove: InterVarsity; cf. Millard Erickson (1991). The Word Became Flesh (35). Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 119

Kenneth Schenk (1997). “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 66: 98, 102. 120

Hurtado, “Son of God” 905–906; Schenk, “Keeping” 99.

121

D. R. Bauer (1992). “Son of God” (774). In Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 122 I. Howard Marshall (1967). “The Divine Sonship of Jesus.” Interpretation 21: 90; cf. Craig L. Blomberg (1997). Jesus and the Gospels (405). Nashville, TN: B & H. 123 Norval Geldenhuys (1977). Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (130). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 124

Dumitru Staniloae (1994). Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God (249). Ioan Ionita and Robert Barringer (trans.). Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. Cited in D. F. Kelley, Systematic Theology 261. 125

Staniloae, Orthodox 249.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !119

knows him.126 F. F. Bruce characterizes the process this way: The Son and the Father exist together in an eternal relationship of reciprocal love, and all those who are united to the Son through believing in him are welcomed into this relationship: the Father of Jesus becomes their Father too.127 In other words, our own union with God “depends upon the intimate union of the Father and the Son.”128 The salvation granted to believers as part of God’s eternal plan —making us his own sons and daughters—was accomplished through the perfect Son, our model. The historical development of Christological and Trinitarian doctrine The creeds, the Trinity, and the Son At the conclusion of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus gives his apostles their marching orders using an aorist imperative: make disciples of all nations. Then using two present participles in an imperatival sense, he describes the activities that accompany discipling: baptizing and teaching them everything he taught them. Baptism was to be in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the only place in Scripture in which a member of the Trinity speaks objectively to name the persons of the Trinity. This is why it has become the normative Trinitarian formula. The book of Acts has seeming variations in the baptismal formula, but it is unknown whether these are a matter of abbreviation on Luke’s part for literary reasons, or—and this seems more likely—the formula had not yet been standardized. The Didache is a church manual of instruction written toward the end of the first century or beginning of the second century. The Didache’s baptismal formula is the same as Matthew 28:19: “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The formula is used today in the west (Roman Catholic and Protestant) and in the east (Orthodox, Coptic, Maronite, Roman Catholic and other communions). In other words, the use of the Trinitarian formula is nearly universal. In Latin tradition the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 culminated in the Apostles’ Creed. The same formula resulted in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.129 It is natural that creeds would develop from earlier baptismal confessions. Baptismal

126

J. N. D. Kelly (1972). Early Christian Creeds. Essex, England: Longman/Pearson Education Ltd.

127

F. F. Bruce (1986). Jesus: Lord and Savior (167). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

128 William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam (1971). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (389). ICC Edinburgh: T. & T Clark; cf. Geerhardus Vos (1953). The Self-disclosure of Jesus (200-1) (Rev. ed.). Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House. 129

! 120

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 89–91, 96, 121.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

candidates were catechized to profess the faith into which they were baptized.130 In the early third century, Hippolytus records a baptismal interrogation that included a threefold profession of faith, corresponding to the three persons of the Trinity.131 J. N. D. Kelly notes that the Trinitarian baptismal command of Matthew 28:19 was “the creative model on which the baptismal questions, and so baptismal creeds, were constructed.”132 The creeds not only tell us how the early church understood the Trinity, they reveal how Christ was understood. The old Roman creed, the predecessor of the Apostles’ Creed, clearly implies that Christ was the Son of God, and as the only begotten, he was the preexistent Son.133 The creed’s nucleus is the command given by Christ to the apostles in Matthew 28:19. In the phrase, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we have the heart of the Christian Gospel: God, who is a Father, revealed himself in history through one who was at the same time both God and man—and who continues to operate in the lives of his followers by his Spirit. This is “the uniqueness of Christianity.”134 The Word, the Son, and Marcellus During the first three centuries of the post-apostolic era, many Church fathers made considerable use of the term logos. This was natural given their ties to Greek philosophical traditions, but they also continued to use Son of God or Son. This is evident in Justin Martyr’s Apology, Clement of Rome (Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 9), Athenagorus (Plea, chapters 10, 24), Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 20), The Martyrdom of Polycarp (chapter 14), Irenaeas (Against Heresies, chapter 3), and others. While they could speak freely of Christ as the logos, they did not lose sight of his eternal sonship. However, when eternal sonship is removed, as happened in the case of Marcellus of Ancyra, problems ensue. Marcellus lived during the theologically turbulent fourth century as the debates with the Arians were raging. As a signer of the Nicene canons, Marcellus was a respected and influential theologian of his day, but had never promoted the Nicene Creed. Marcellus’s legacy is his teaching that prior to the incarnation, Jesus existed as logos not as Son. Many interpreted his view as a new variation of the old modalist135 heresy. Although it was not his intention, his teaching added fuel to the speculations of the Arians. His error was rejected in the twenty-six anathemas of the First Sirmian 130

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 206; Schaff http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html (2/3/11).

131

Ralph Martin. (1964). Worship in the early church (61). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

132

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 203–204.

133

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 148.

134

Kenneth Scott Latourette (1997). A History of Christianity: to A.D. 1500 (135). Peabody, MA: Prince Press.

135 Modalism denies the Trinity, claiming that God is not three persons but one person who reveals himself at different times in three different modes, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !121

Creed in 351. Marcellus was condemned as a heretic at the council of Constantinople in 381, and a year later in a council called by Pope Damasus. One of the twenty-four anathemas from Constantinople stated, “If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal, he is a heretic.” 136 Marcellus’s error was his belief that the eternal logos did not become the Son of God until the incarnation; therefore, Christ was not the personal, pre-incarnate Son.137 God’s self-sacrifice of his own son means much less if sonship begins at the incarnation.138 Marcellus reasoned the logos existed as Word, but not as a hypostasis (understood then as a personal entity). In fairness to Marcellus, it must be noted that he was not fully a modalist or an adoptionist139 in the original sense of those terms, but the conclusion of Constantinople that a sonless Trinity is conceptually and theologically unworkable was correct. The council of Chalcedon (AD 451) addressed the two natures of Christ in one person. This was the last major council to deal with Trinitarian and Christological issues. The doctrine was defined and though many of the same heresies continued to recur, the Chalcedonian creed affirmed Christ as God the Word. As did its predecessors, the council described Christ as Son. It affirmed the Son as only begotten (or unique, monogenes); begotten by the Father before all ages, thus agreeing with the Nicene Creed and most Eastern creeds. Chalcedon did not change the Church’s understanding of eternal sonship; it affirmed it. Son of God in biblical theology Four senses of Christ’s divine sonship Geerhardus Vos outlined four different senses in which the designation Son of God is applied to Jesus in the New Testament. These four aspects are not mutually exclusive, but are integrally related to one another. One sense is moral and religious: Jesus lived as an obedient Son of God in terms of his perfect faith and character.140 When Jesus says the peacemakers will be called sons of God, he is speaking of this moral and religious sense of sonship. In a greater way Jesus proves himself to be God’s Son by the way he lived, showing God’s character and nature through obedience to the Father as a faithful son. Commentary on this aspect of sonship is found throughout exegetical literature, especially with regard to Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, where the real issue was 136 John Calvin, dealing with a similar error taught by Servetus and others, says that Jesus did not become Son of God at the incarnation, but is so by virtue of his deity and eternal essence (Institutes II, xiv, 6). 137

Harold O. J. Brown (1984). Heresies: Heresy and orthodoxy in the history of the Church (121). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

138

Vos, Self-disclosure 221.

139 140

! 122

Adoptionism believes Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, part of a testing required to prove his worthiness. Vos, Self-disclosure 141-142.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

not whether Jesus was actually the Son of God, rather what kind of Son he would be. The second sense of Jesus’ divine sonship is the nativistic: the basis for Jesus’ occupancy of throne of his father David is not human paternity, but divine action (Lk 1:32, 35). This nativistic aspect of Jesus’ divine sonship is linked to his genealogy reaching back to Adam. Adam is called a son of God in the sense that his existence was directly due to the action of God, not human parents. The third sense of sonship is Messianic. A few, largely critical scholars, view this as the primary meaning—some, the only meaning—of the term Son of God in the Gospels, especially the Synoptics. They interpret it as an adoptive sonship, keeping with Psalm 2, Isaiah 42:1, and 2 Samuel 14:7. The eternal sonship, the fourth sense is the view held traditionally by most interpreters. Vos argued that because the Messiah must act as an absolute representative of God and is promised dominion over the ends of the earth (both in Psalm 2 and in Revelation), only a Son in the highest sense is able to adequately fulfill the Messianic office. A world ruler in such a comprehensive sense as the Old Testament prophecies describe him, needs to be super-human. 141 Eternal sonship: the basis of Messianic ministry As Vos stated, it is this eternal sonship that qualifies the Son for the Messianic sonship, which is simply the eternal sonship expressed in history. Only a Son could fulfill such an office because it involves inheriting God’s rule over the world; such a world ruler must of necessity be superhuman.142 It is crucial here not to make the mistake of assuming that divine sonship is equivalent to being the Messiah; far more is involved. Eternal sonship is the basis for the Messianic sonship.143 That is, Jesus is the Christ by virtue of being the Son of God; he is not the Son of God because he is the Christ. Being the Son of God means more than being the Messiah; the two are not the same.144 Son of God in the New Testament The Gospels 141

Vos, Self-disclosure 190, 192.

142

Vos, Self-disclosure 190–192.

143

Vos, Self-disclosure 190; cf. Donald J. Verseput (1987). “The Role and Meaning of the Son of God Title in Matthew’s Gospel.” New Testament Studies 33: 538, 548; cf. Murray, Collected Writings 68; Ladd, Theology 163-166; Marshall, “The Divine Sonship” 99; Richard N. Longenecker (1994). “The foundational conviction of New Testament Christology: The obedience/faithfulness/sonship of Christ” (95-6). In Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Eds.). Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 144 Douglas J. Moo (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (45 fn 27). NICNT Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; cf. John Nolland. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew. (163-4). NIGTC Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Darrell L. Bock (1994). “A Theology of Luke-Acts” (108). In Roy B. Zuck (Ed.). A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago, IL: Moody Press; Rudolph Schnackenburg (1995). Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology (310, 312). O. C. Dean Jr. (trans.). Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !123

The Church did not slowly evolve an understanding of Christ’s deity over the first few centuries of Christianity. His deity is made obvious by the New Testament, and especially by the four evangelists. The titles Son and Son of God—and Jesus’ selfrevelation connected with the titles—are at the heart of the evangelists’ understanding of his deity and the Trinity. William Lane believes the Church developed her understanding of the Trinity through God’s salvific activity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.145 The Church came to know the second person of the Trinity as Son because of the relation Jesus, the man, enjoyed as Son to the Father. Since God’s self revelation in history is true to his real being, the church was able to draw conclusions about God’s eternal, triune being. The New Testament writers believed in the deity of Christ, Lane says, and as they made reasonable conclusions about him as the preexistent, divine Son, were able to think in terms of the Trinity. The starting point for Christology was the historic Christ: Christians worked from Christology to Trinity, not the other way around. 146 T. F. Torrance agrees with this, saying, “The incarnational and saving selfrevelation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit was traced back to what God is enhypostatically and coinherently in himself, in his own eternal being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”147 Even from the beginning the Church did not hesitate to use the title Son of God to indicate the supreme place occupied by Jesus. 148 Turner states that it was the resurrection that helped develop the early church’s belief in Christ’s deity. He says that although Jesus clearly revealed himself to be the unique Son to God, it was not so clear that he was God the Son—at least not at first. The primary stimulus that changed the disciples’ understanding was the resurrection, which enabled them even in the forty day period between the resurrect and ascension, to recognize his divinity—as Thomas did when he confessed Jesus as Lord and God (John 20:31), or the disciples when they worshipped him on the mountain in Galilee (Mt. 28:17).149 In commenting on Matthew 28:19, Blomberg also cites the resurrection as being the event that brought clarity to the eternal aspect of Jesus’ sonship. He notices that after the resurrection, the term Son of God is used in a manner that would be employed in later Trinitarian formulas; namely, Jesus is deity and the Son of God is “God’s ontological equal and one part of the

145

Cf. William L. Lane (1974). The Gospel According to Mark. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

146 A. N. S. Lane (1982). Christology beyond Chalcedon (275-6). In Harold H. Rowdon (Ed.). Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 147

T. F. Torrance (1991). The Trinitarian faith (199). London: T & T Clark. Cited in D. F. Kelly, Systematic Theology 450.

148

Ladd, Theology 168.

149

M. M. B. Turner (1982). “The Spirit of Christ and Christology” (173, 190). In Harold H. Rowdon (Ed.). Christ the Lord.

! 124

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Godhead itself.”150 We should not underestimate the significance of Jesus’ divine sonship in the Gospel accounts; it is of paramount importance. I. H. Marshall calls it “the supreme category of interpretation of the person of Jesus in the Gospels.”151 He says it is a category that subordinates even his Messiahship. Bauer suggested that the title, Son of God, is not only the “foremost category” in each of the Gospels, but possibly the most significant Christological title in the entire New Testament.152 Similarly Longenecker comments that just as Jesus’ filial consciousness undergirded all he did, so also the evangelists had a keen awareness of Jesus’ unique sonship, a consciousness that served as the foundational conviction for all they wrote. The synoptic evangelists, he notes, edited and arranged their material, each in his own way, to communicate to their readers the importance of Jesus’ sonship. It was as though they said, “To understand Jesus, one must see his divine sonship as basic to all that he did!”153 Schnackenburg points out that as the Son of God stands at the center of Paul’s Christological statements,154 it also pervades the Gospels. For example, Mark’s picture of Jesus is suffused with the divine sonship and John’s theme of the Son of God is woven through his story. Schnackenburg concludes that the early church found an enduring way to express Jesus’ deepest essence and significance: the title, Son of God.155 Interpreting the Gospel authors’ intended meaning of Son of God Interpreting the term Son of God in the Gospels involves multiple levels of meaning. Not every person in the Gospels who called Jesus the Son of God necessarily expressed the author’s intended meaning of the title. A variety of players in the drama use the title: soldiers, disciples, the high priest, God, Satan, demons, angels, and even Jesus himself. The title Son of God is used to express a variety of thoughts: worship (Mt 14:33); fear and awe (Mt 27:54); even mockery (Mt 27:40). It takes on new dimensions when spoken by supernatural beings: God the Father’s deep affection for the Son (Mt. 3:17; 17:5); demonic terror (Mark 3:11); and for Satan, it becomes leverage for evil at the temptation (Mt 4:3ff). 150Blomberg, Jesus 408. All the major Christian doctrines are interdependent. An adequate doctrine of salvation requires an adequate Christology, which in turn presses for a satisfactory special theology of the Trinity (Brown, Heresies 150-2). Murray agrees, saying a faith and confession that is not “conditioned by the faith of God as Trinity, and by the intra-divine and intrinsic relations involved in Jesus’ identity as the eternal Son, does not provide the Christology biblical revelation demands. The true Christology is one that has its starting point and finds its basis in Christ’s intrinsic sonship and therefore in its Trinitarian correlatives” (Murray, Collected Writings 80). 151

Marshall, “The Divine Sonship” 99.

152

Bauer, “Son of God” 769.

153

Longenecker, “Foundational Conviction” 476, 484-5.

154

Cf. Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4; Rom 1:3-4; 8:2, 32.

155

Schnackenburg, Jesus 310, 312.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !125

Our interpretive task is to determine the author’s intention. Although we may know little of the reading audience, by the process of evaluation and drawing conclusions from the literary clues, the authorial intention is established. The authors of the four Gospels did not write their story as one would write fiction; rather they functioned as gatekeepers, each choosing the material for his account, arranging and shaping its final form. The Gospels convey real events and dialogues, but each author crafted his own story with an individual literary purpose. Therefore to determine the meaning of the terms Son of God and the Son in the Gospels, we primarily focus on what each evangelist intends to communicate to his audience. At the time the Gospels were being written, the evangelists and their audiences knew more about Jesus than those in the events being recorded. Jesus’ life, his teachings, his miracles, and especially the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost—followed by serious theological reflection in the light of these events over three or more decades—brought about dramatic changes to the Church’s understanding of Jesus and his titles. Consequently we cannot limit our understanding of Son of God and the Son to the first century Jewish understanding of Messiah prior to the incarnation. One of the themes throughout the Gospels is that even Jesus’ closest friends did not understand him. It was not until after the resurrection—and more importantly, because of it—that everything changed. Son of God and the Son in Matthew’s Gospel Matthew has three episodes in which the Father is mentioned and Jesus refers to himself as the Son (11:27; 24:36; 28:19). Two of the episodes help us understand Jesus’ self-awareness of his divine sonship (11:27; 28:19). According to Verseput, the title Son of God is the key motif for understanding Matthew’s literary and theological purpose.156 Matthew and his audience share a common understanding that Jesus is the Son of God; therefore his readers easily follow the direction of Matthew’s storyline.157 Carson concurs that as Matthew’s readers move through the text of the Gospel, they know things that people of Jesus’ day did not know, since many Christological truths were only understood after the resurrection and exaltation. The reader can understand the deeper truths about the Son of God, things not understood by those involved in the actual Gospel accounts. Carson notes that those who confessed Jesus as Son of God may have meant no more than Christ—even that understanding was probably lacking recognition of Christ as Suffering Servant, or an ontological connection with deity. Matthew’s readers, on the other hand, are able to appreciate the significance of Jesus, the Son of God, far beyond the understanding of the actors in the drama itself.158 156

Verseput, “The Role” 532.

157

D. A. Carson (1982). “Christological ambiguities in Matthew” (97–114). In Harold H. Rowdon (Ed.). Christ the Lord.

158

Carson, “Christological” 113.

! 126

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Matthew introduces the theme of Jesus’ divine sonship with key questions scattered throughout his Gospel. In 13:56 the people of his own hometown, after hearing his parables and about his miracles ask, “Where did this man get all these things?” The crowds ask, “Could this be the Son of David?” (12:23), and later, “Who is this?” (21:10). In 11:2-3 John the Baptist questions whether Jesus is the one they are waiting for, or is another coming—i.e., is a greater One coming, or are you the One? Jesus himself asked the question, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” (22:42). The disciples had a significant question following the calming of the storm: What sort of man is this? (8:27). Matthew words these questions to guide the reader to the correct answer.159 According to Nolland, the answer to all these questions comes at the calming of the second storm (14:33): the disciples worship him. Jesus has acted as only God can; they know they are in the presence of God, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”160 Garland observes that the disciples’ confession, Jesus is the Son of God, answers the question raised during the first storm. They had asked, “What kind of a man is this? Even the winds and waves obey him!” (8:27). At the second storm they have their answer—the answer to all the questions raised by others in Matthew’s Gospel account, whether by John the Baptist, the crowds, or the people in his hometown.161 Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ and Son of the living God (16:16) is a Christological high point of the Gospel. At the end of Matthew’s story, the centurion and the soldiers assigned to execute Jesus, acknowledge that he is the Son of God. Regardless of what they actually meant, this profession seems to be Matthew’s desired climax to the Gospel. As Gundry notes, Matthew, as well as Mark, intended their readers to understand that Jesus is the Son of God. 162 Son of God and the Son in Mark’s Gospel Mark introduces his Gospel with, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”; that is, his Gospel is about the Son of God. Later there are similar statements: the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism; the terrified imploring of demons (3:11; 5:7); God’s announcement at the transfiguration (9:4); and Jesus’ own executioner, the centurion (15:39). Regardless the centurion’s meaning of Son of God, Mark’s readers knew the meaning—Jesus’ divine sonship is at the heart of the Mark. Schnackenburg observes that in Mark Son of God is mentioned in passages particularly crucial for Christology. This is especially true of the centurion’s confession, a point of crystallization for the proper understanding of Jesus. According to 159

John Nolland (1989). Luke 1–9:20 (372). WBC Dallas, TX: Word.

160

Nolland, Luke 603.

161

David Garland (2001). Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary (160). Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys.

162

Robert H. Gundry (1982). Matthew: A commentary on his literary art (578). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !127

Schnackenburg, the Gospel is framed at the beginning and the end by the profession of Jesus as the Son of God.163 Although Son of God may mean no more than Christ to some —such as the high priest (14:61)—when augmented by the accounts of healing, miracles, exorcisms, powerful teaching, forgiving sins, the supernatural events that accompanied his death, and of course by the resurrection, Mark uses the phrase to prompt thoughts of Jesus’ divinity in his Roman readers.164 Son of God and the Son in Luke’s Gospel Luke employs Son of God differently than Matthew and Mark; of those who acknowledge Jesus’ divine sonship, the only human is Jesus himself. Luke reports Peter’s more abbreviated confession. He also records the centurion saying only that Jesus is a righteous man; however, this does not mean Son of God is unimportant in Luke, or that it only has the connotation of Messiah. On the contrary, Jesus’ sonship is quite important in Luke. Even at the temptation, which focuses on God’s statement at Jesus’ baptism, two of the three trials are directed at his sonship. Luke intends to have only supernatural agents testify to Jesus’ divine sonship: the angel at the annunciation (1:32, 35), the voice of God at Jesus’ baptism (3:22), Satan in the wilderness temptation (4:3, 9), demons being exorcised (8:28), and the voice of God again at the transfiguration (9:35). Luke’s purpose may be to show that these supernatural beings understand Jesus’ sonship in a manner qualitatively different from the incomplete and partially skewed understanding of humans. Son of God and the Son in John’s Gospel In the Gospel of John, Jesus calls God Father over one hundred times, and refers to himself or is referred to as Son about thirty times. As Ladd said, Jesus’ sonship is the central Christological idea in John’s Gospel. John’s account is written so that people may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but more than Messiah: he is the Son of God, partaking of deity. The Father-Son relation woven throughout the fabric of John’s story, is a relationship characterized by the object of divine love, Jesus, having an exclusive knowledge of the Father, and being given the power to mediate not only life, but to bring humanity to God himself.165 Tenney describes sonship in John’s Gospel as expressing close fellowship and intimacy between the Father and Son, as well as a unity of nature. Since he shares the Father’s nature, he is able to reveal God. 166 On this unity and intimacy between the Father and the Son, Bruce wrote, 163

Schnackenburg, Jesus 45, 49.

164

Robert H. Gundry (1993). Mark: A commentary on his apology for the cross (34). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans

165

Ladd, Theology 283-5.

166

Tenney, The Gospel of John 196 and 38.

! 128

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

The relationship which the Father and the Son eternally bear to each other is declared to be a coinherence or mutual indwelling of love. Jesus is in the Father; the Father is in him. And the purpose of Jesus’ coming to reveal the Father is that men and women may . . . be drawn into this divine fellowship of love, dwelling in God as God dwells in them.167 Thomas’s confession (20:31) necessarily involved a belief in Jesus’ deity. The Son possesses the divine nature and is God by nature. This intimate and eternal knowledge of God qualifies the Son to reveal God’s nature and character. Whereas the sonship of believers is an adoptive sonship, Christ’s sonship is essential. He was in complete intimate fellowship with the Father before and after the incarnation. 168 D. Kelly says that in Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17), his saving work for humanity is expressed in terms of the “eternal love and glory between Father and Son that are conveyed from the very heart of the Father to them.”169 The high priestly prayer is indisputably a transaction between Father and Son born of mutual interests, culminating in mutual glory, and drawing new sons and daughters into the oneness and glory of the eternal Trinity. Christology of the Son of God in the epistles of Paul Paul does not often refer to Jesus Christ as God’s Son; however, it is definitely a concept of central importance for him, as he often uses the title in key places in his letters.170 For instance if we judge only from a statistical standpoint, we would have to say the phrase, “the righteousness of God,” was unimportant to him. It occurs only about ten times, all but two of them in Romans, but it is significant in Romans because those passages state the central theme of the letter. Paul does not often mention the kingdom of God or Jesus’ role as Messiah, but this does not mean they are unimportant to him. 171 Jesus as the Word (logos), occurs in only two verses of John’s Gospel, once in 1 John and Revelation, though never in any clear reference by other New Testament authors. The importance of logos hardly needs to be mentioned, as it has gripped the imagination of Christian theologians, scholars, and preachers throughout the centuries. We may conclude from this that a term occurring infrequently may still have theological importance. Marshall observes that, statistically speaking, the fifteen 167

F. F. Bruce (1983). The Gospel of John (14). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

168

Murray J. Harris (1992). Jesus as God: The New Testament use of Theos in reference to Jesus (87). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

169

D. Kelly, Systematic Theology 273.

170

O’Collins, The Tripersonal God 59.

171

Ladd, Theology 449-450.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !129

occurrences of the Son of God theme in Paul make it relatively unimportant (only one tenth the number of times he calls Jesus Lord). He goes on to say that Paul uses this title for Jesus when summing up the content of the Gospel or for other generally important statements (e.g., in contexts about Christ’s relationship with God and in traditional statements about “God sending his preexistent Son into the world”). Marshall also notes that Paul uses Son to emphasize that through his work as Son, believers are adopted as God’s sons.172 When Paul discusses divine sonship he is usually focusing on soteriology, the Son’s role as savior.173 Barclay commented that Paul’s use of Jesus as the Son of God at the beginning of his letters, indicates that sonship was “the keynote of the Christian Gospel.”174 Schnackenburg says the theme of Jesus as the Son of God stands at the center of Paul’s Christological statements. 175 Ridderbos goes even further: “Christ’s being the Son of God is none other than being God himself.”176 When Paul writes, “God sent his Son,” obviously Jesus was already Son; conservative scholars are in consensus on this point. For Paul then, God gave his Son as a sacrifice, the ultimate proof of his love. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. (Rom 5:10 KJV) He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? (Rom 8:32) Paul teaches that believers are adopted as sons through the eternal son, their predetermined destiny is conformity to the image of God’s Son (Rom 8:29).177 Finally, we can see Paul’s exalted Christology in Colossians 1:15-20. The passage begins with hos estin (Greek, who is), referring to the phrase “his dear son” (1:13). This makes it clear that Christ’s sonship is as Lord over all created things. God’s son is the image of the invisible God (v. 15), in whom all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (v. 19). He is the firstborn of all creation (v. 15) for whom all things have been created (v. 16), and he is before all things (v. 17). So despite the relatively infrequent occurrence of 172

Marshall, “Titles” 778.

173 Marshall in Michel, O. (1986). “Son of God.” In Colin Brown (Ed.). The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (634-644). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan; cf. Marshall, “Titles” 778. 174

William Barclay (1958). The Mind of St. Paul (56). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

175

Schnackenburg, Jesus 312. See Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4; Rom 1:3-4; 8:3, 32.

176

Herman Ridderbos (1975). Paul: An Outline of His Theology (77). John Richard de Witt (trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

177

Hurtado, “Son of God” 905-906.

! 130

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

the title Son of God in Paul’s letters, Jesus as God’s Son is at the heart of Paul’s theology, just as it is at the heart of his Gospel. Some final reflections on Jesus’ divine sonship The author of Hebrews tells us that God’s enduring plan is to bring many sons to glory (Heb 2:10). Jesus is not ashamed to call believers his brothers because they are from the same “one,” whether that means from the same Father (NRSV) or family (NIV) (Heb 2:11). There is an organic, familial relation with God that goes to the heart and core understanding biblical truth. Our hope of glory is to have Christ in us (Col 1:27), and it is Jesus’ sonship that is our access to glory (John 17:5, 22). Our destiny is to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom 8:29). We are made in God’s image. The reason we are conformed to the image of his Son is found within the archetypal FatherSon pattern inherent to God himself. As C. S. Lewis said in his sermon, “The weight of glory,” we are on a journey toward home. I believe that if we delight ourselves in the Lord, he will give us the deepest desires of our heart. Our deepest desire on this journey toward home is to live in close, loving relationships. Relationships are most deeply experienced within families. God is the eternal Father, and we who believe in his Son are his sons and daughters, moving toward the glory of eternal oneness with him in conformity to the character of his Son. In summary, what are the theological and practical values of Christ’s eternal, divine sonship for the believer? These treasures include: • Jesus’ sonship, a union as Son with the Father, is the avenue for humans to be one with God (see John 17, especially vv. 1-2, 21-2). Jesus grants human beings access to relationship with God similar to what he himself has, a relationship that is unequivocally expressed by his use of the term Abba, Father, in prayer. Because Jesus is the Son of God, his followers may become sons and daughters of God who can likewise address God as Father (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:4-5). • Jesus’ sonship is the basis of God’s sending the Spirit to his children, the Spirit of sonship (Rom 8:15; cf. Gal 4:6). • Jesus’ sonship is the basis of his high priestly ministry, providing us access and giving us acceptability with God (Heb 4:14). It is also the basis of his eternal priesthood, in which he intercedes for his people (Heb 7:25-8). • As the Son Jesus has full authority to reveal God (Mt 11:27). His sonship also completes God’s revelation, which comes through him (Heb 1:1-2). • God’s willingness to sacrifice his Son is the basis for our assurance of the depth of God’s love and permanence of God’s acceptance of us (Rom 8:32; 1 John 4:9-10). • Jesus’ sonship is the basis for granting believers true freedom (John 8:36). • We are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. In the Son we have redemption (Col 1:13-14).

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !131

• Our eternal destiny is conformity with the Son (Rom 8:29). • The Son gives eternal life to whomever he chooses (John 5:21; 6:40). • The Son’s authority to judge terrified the demons, guaranteeing their doom. Satan attacked Jesus’ sonship in the wilderness, attempting to corrupt his Sonship into a self-serving distortion (Mt 4:3-6). In short, Christ’s eternal identity as Son of God is the heart of our faith; it is fundamental to our existence as believers. As Murray puts it, John 3:16 implies that the faith by which believers are saved is faith directed to him in his character as the Son, just as it is faith in the Son of God that gives us life (Gal 2:20). I will let Murray’s cogent statement summarize the centrality of the term, Son of God: The rudiment of faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior is that he is the Son of God. His sonship belongs to his identity, and a faith or confession or proclamation that is not conditioned by what he is in this specific character falls short at its center and thereby robs the Savior of the honor that is intrinsically his.178

Questions: 1. Muslim Question: Jesus was the eternal Son of God primarily in physical terms, God had sex [therefore had a wife] and consummated a Son? What is your response? 2. Jesus eternal Sonship and divinity could be understood in only metaphorical categories: Jesus is a "Son" is simply a metaphorical, for another reality, and therefore can be understood in different terms then literal renderings: "Son of God" like "Messiah", "beloved" or "prince"? Why or why not? 3. Herman Bavinck said that: "God is Father in the real and complete sense of the term"...as he was the first Father. How does understanding this relate to Jesus and our adoption and sonship? 4. Dr. Richard Bauckham makes the comment about the NT inclusion of the Father and Son in the divine identity: "The term Father and Son entail each other. The Father is called Father only because Jesus is his Son, and Jesus is called Son only because he is the Son of his divine Father. Each is essential to the identity of the other. So to say that Jesus and the Father are one is to say that the unique divine identity comprises the relationship in which the Father is who he is only in relation to the Son and vice versa."Why is this important to understand when Muslims say, "No, Allah doesn't have a Son"?

178

! 132

Murray, Collected Writings 62-3.

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Was Jesus Really Crucified? Darrell Bock Darrell Bock, BA, University of Texas; ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary; PhD, University of Aberdeen; postdoctoral study, Tübingen University. Darrell has earned international recognition as a Humboldt Scholar (Tübingen University in Germany) for his work in Luke-Acts, historical Jesus study, biblical theology, as well as with messianic Jewish ministries. He was president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) for 2000–2001, serves as editor-at-large for Christianity Today and is on the board of Chosen People Ministries and Wheaton College. Darrell is married to Sally (for 36 years) and is a father of two daughters and a son, and has two grandsons.

Not just a Muslim concern I have travelled in places like Jordan and Turkey. These are fascinating countries, full of hospitable people. In these travels and my conversations, a question kept surfacing that I was not used to having to answer in the West. It was what proof do we have that Jesus was really crucified. This might seem like an odd question. It certainly struck me that way when I was initially asked about it. But the question shows that what one group might take for granted is not a given in another context. That is the case with this question. Since Muslims are raised to question some details of what we see in the New Testament, the testimony to the biblical death of Jesus does not count. The claim is that the New Testament is sufficiently corrupt, thus it cannot be trusted. A defense of the trustworthiness of the New Testament text we have is an essay in itself, but it should be said on that matter that the textual evidence for our knowing the wording of those texts is better than for any other ancient work. Another thing is certain. There is no way those texts are so corrupt that they completely miss what happened to Jesus. However, that is not the tact I want to take with this essay. I want to make the case that Jesus was crucified. I do not want to appeal to the gospels or the New

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !133

Testament. I want to make that case through appeal to extra-biblical sources. Let me ask this question: Is there evidence in early extra-biblical sources that Jesus was crucified under Pontus Pilate? If those who resisted the rise of Christianity recognized that Jesus died under Pilate, then this is solid evidence that he indeed was crucified. Are there such sources? The short answer is yes. Here are the details. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64 Let me start with a Jewish historian from the end of the first century, Josephus. His full name was Joseph ben Matthias but he was better known as Flavius Josephus. He was the son of a priest and became a Pharisee. He fought for Israel in the War with Rome when Jerusalem was overrun in AD 70. He lost to the Romans in an earlier battle at Gamla in AD 67. He ended up being taken prisoner and was brought to the emperorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house because he had predicted that Vespasian would become emperor, endearing him to the leader. Here he wrote a history of Israel called Antiquities that ran from Genesis to his own time. In Book 18, he briefly discusses Jesus. This text is not without its issues. In the form in which we have it, Josephus says that it might not be proper to call Jesus a man or claim that he was the Messiah and that he appeared to his own on the third day. These are assertions that a Jewish writer, who did not become a Christian, would not make. So this text, as we have it, is certainly corrupt. All historians who work with this text recognize this. Here is the text as we have it. I write it with the disputed parts in italics. The remainder is viewed by most scholars as likely very close to what Josephus wrote for reasons I will discuss after presenting the text. Here is the passage: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of surprising works, a teacher of such men who receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct to this day.

! 134

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

We know this text existed because Eusebius mentions it in his Ecclesiastical History (1.1.7-8). That gives evidence of this text from about AD 325. Our manuscripts for this text date back to Latin versions from the ninth century, and our earliest Greek manuscripts come from as early as the eleventh century. It is also important to note that in debates with Jews in the second century there was no effort by Jesus’ opponents to argue that Jesus was not crucified. This was a given in their debates as mentioned in Josephus. The parts of the text that look authentic explain why. Jews also accepted that Jesus had been executed at the hands of Pontus Pilate with encouragement from Jewish leaders. There is another clue that something like this was written by Josephus. In Antiquities 20.200, Josephus discusses the death of James, Jesus’ brother, and refers to him as “brother of the so-called Christ.” For many scholars this reference assumes that Josephus has discussed the Christ earlier in his work or else his Roman readers would be unlikely to know whom he was referencing in this ever so brief allusion. All of this points to fact that at the end of the first century a Jewish historian testifies to Jesus’ crucifixion by Pilate. Since the bulk of Jews were opposed to Christians, this evidence is significant. When opponents recognize a point, the discussion starts from there. Tacitus, Annals 15.44 The idea of there being no crucifixion and Josephus perhaps being wrong suffers even more loss of credibility when one notes that Roman historians also refer to the event. Now Rome was an outsider in the debate between Christians and Jews. So the testimony of Roman historians reflects the remarks of a more neutral camp. Even more, if the claim that Rome put Jesus to death had not taken place, the Romans would have been quick to question it. Why take responsibility for something you did not do? So, when a Roman historian testifies to such a death, it correlates to what we read in Josephus and means that all three cultural participants in the time of Jesus affirm he was crucified under Pontus Pilate. There is such a witness. P. Cornelius Tacitus, better known simply as Tacitus, wrote a history of Rome known as Annals, covering the period from AD 14-68. The origin of the work dates from around AD 115-117. In it he briefly discusses Christians. In 15.44 he writes,

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !135

Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called “Christians,” hated for their abominable crimes. The author of the name, Christ, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated. The citation, as a whole, shows that Tacitus is no fan of Christians. He has no reason to mention Jesus’ death to Pilate as a fabrication. He notes it because it is what his knowledge of Roman activity revealed about what took place. He specifically names Pilate and ties the remarks to the figure known as the Christ. This has to be a reference to Jesus, since that is the link among Christians, who are the main subject of the historian’s remarks. A Jew and Roman agree Here are two key extra-biblical witnesses that discuss the crucifixion of Jesus. They come from a Jewish historian and a Roman historian. Neither of them has any reason to mislead about this event. If Jesus had not been crucified under Pontus Pilate, these historians would have no reason to affirm this. The easiest route for Josephus to take is to state that the Jews and Pilate did not kill Jesus. Something else has to explain the rise of this new religious movement. Even less clear is why Tacitus, who has no real reason to make the point, would refer to the execution of Jesus under Pontus Pilate unless he really accepted that Rome had crucified him. Given his clear disdain for Christians, Tacitus could have said that Christians claimed Pilate crucified their leader, but he really did not. He could have charged them with slander against Rome. But the ancient historian does not do this. He simply accepts that Rome under Pilate put Jesus to death. The significance of these texts on claims Jesus was not crucified is immense. There is no solid historical reason for such a claim unless it happened. When Jews and Romans recognize that Jesus was crucified as Christians claim, then there is no reason to reject the idea that this event took place. Most first- and second-century opponents accepted the point. So to argue 2000 years later that such a claim is wrong—or 600 years later as the Qur’an does—ignores the testimony we get from all sides within a century

! 136

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

of the event that this moment took place. Any such denial cannot claim to be historically based. So, if someone asks me if Jesus was crucified, my answer is that not only Christians but also ancient Jewish and Roman historians affirm this. This gives me no reason to deny or doubt that it took place.

Questions 1. What are the key points for both Josephus and Tacitus? Create a table that shows what elements of story they have in common. 2. Using the chart you have just created that show the common elements of Josephus and Tacitus, write a sound bite of no more than 30 seconds that will answer the very common claim: Jesus never died on the cross and your Bible is corrupted. So why should I believe it?

3. What other ancient documents and historians might you call upon to support the idea that Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; crucifixion really did take place?

4. What reasons can you provide for why the Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an is not a document to rely upon for information about the crucifixion?

Summary Biblical scholar, Darrell Bock, examines the evidence for the death and crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate by surveying ancient Jewish and Roman sources.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !137

VIDEO LESSON 7 - Insider Movements  I. Introduction A. An issue of contextualization B. Speaking clearly into the culture C. Normally, contextualization is an accepted practice D. Insiders adopt the religion of Islam as culture E. Adopting certain aspects of culture is important 1. Some things in culture a sin and need to be rejected 2. Culture can remain neutral so that it can be adopted F. But if adopting religion, Scripture, a prophet as part of one’s identity is going too far; prohibited. 1. Isaiah 6 -7, Jeremiah 7 2. 1 John II. Understanding inside movements A. Definition: “Popular movements to Christ that bypass both formal and explicit expressions of Christian religion.” B. 1 Corinthians 7:20, “each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” C. They are not expressions of Church planting, but are outside Christianity and within Islam

! 138

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

1. Followers can be called Messianic Muslims 2. Do not consider themselves Christians 3. They are Muslim followers of Jesus: a continuum of unbelief to Christ 4. John Travis, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Christ centered communities who have accepted Jesus as Lord and savior.â&#x20AC;? C5. 5. Islamic incompatibilities are rejected or reinterpreted 6. Believers may remain active in the mosque 7. Phil Parshall, they call themselves Muslims without any reference to Christ 8. They may still perform salat, say shahada, and even perform hajj 9. They compare themselves to the co-existence of Church and synagogue 10. The hope is that Islam will be reformed from within D. The concern for removing cultural barriers has led to insider Bible translations 1. Translators are using terms and phrases acceptable to Muslims 2. Replacement of son of God with Isa al masih or prince 3. There is no trinity with Lord, Prince/Isa al masih 4. Should be rejected E. Biblical justification? 1. 1 Cor 7:20, justifies remaining in Islam? 2. No, speaks of marriage, etc. 3. This also ignores many passages telling us to avoid idolatry

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !139

4. Syncretism, MBB et al should be rejected as terms 5. 2 Kings 5, worshiping at the temple of Rimmon 6. OT is a polemic against false gods of the nations F. Insider movements attempt to discriminate between idolatry and monotheism 1. Bible = True revelation is equated with covenantal revelation 2. Insider movements have erected a bridge to heresy 3. 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, believers must not be unequally yoked 4. IM makes the case the Islam does not worship idols i. But Allah is not personal ii. He does not walk among us iii. He does not have a son iv. He is not Father G. Placing the bar too low so that the Church does not place it too high 1. IM proponents extol the life changing effects in believers 2. Where is the Church in the IM? 3. IM proponents argue we should not simply accept creeds, confessions, or the manner in which the Church speaks about the Trinity 4. Bad theology mixed with bad theology is part of IM 5. Joining the Church and separation from the mosque is an extra step: false dichotomy separates Christ from the Church 6. Insiders have enough information for a decision, but it falls short of a transformational change

! 140

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

H. What are the safeguards for insiders to keep from becoming heretical or slipping back into Islam? 1. Too often insiders are kept secret 2. Self identity is Muslim 3. They remain within the religious practices of Islam, Q5:111 4. A Muslim identity card is bowing in salat 5. Hadith speaks about a Muslim holding to pillars of Islam 6. But we are not Muslims 7. We are to witness to something different I. They look like mainstream Muslims 1. But our allegiance is to Christ 2. Insider expresses solidarity with all Muslims, not Christians J. Deception 1. Practitioners are funded by Churches because they appear to be field missionaries 2. But on the field they are living and acting like Muslims 3. If anyone preaches another gospel, teaches falsely 4. They are mobilizing national churches K. Are Messianic Muslims related to Muslims or Christians? 1. Proponents are quick to associate insiders with Christians 2. But they do not fully submit to either the mosque or any Christian body

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !141

3. Proponents call these “movements to Christ” a. Where is the movement? b. Where is the Church: Greek ekklesia and Hebrew qahal are the words used for the Church connected in time and space in one covenant with God. c. Kingdom circles used by proponents of IM: misunderstanding of the covenantal relationship with God d. Emergent Church makes the same errors; can’t belong to two very different groups e. Islam is an anti-Christian religion III. Conclusion A. How can a follower of Christ consult the Qur’an and Muhammad? B. IM is undefined C. It is critical for churches to assess what their missionaries are doing D. Church must connect to the field E. Churches are beginning to develop “practice” statements: how they will evangelize Muslims and what will they call themselves? F. Camel method utilizes many Qur’anic verses G. We need to reject these outright

Application: Please go to page 314 and fill out the Video Lesson 7 Application sheet.

! 142

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Small Group Discussion:   A couple of young missionaries recently returned to their country, after some time working on setting up churches in a Muslim-majority country in Asia. They were asked to share their testimony in the church where they congregate. During the testimony, they tell fascinating stories about the work developed, which resulted in several thousand converts, and hundreds of new believers preparing for ministry in a country that, because of the huge Muslim population, is not accustomed to experience such "revival". So they begin to reveal an innovative and revolutionary methodology of contextualization of the Gospel and discipleship of new converts in Islamic countries, which is the secret of the success experienced by them in the ministry. Among the strategies of this methodology are, for example, not only the permission, but also the incentive for the converts to continue identifying themselves as "Muslims" ("submissive to Allah, or God"), "messianic Muslims" or also, "Muslims followers of Jesus "; Believing that Muhammad received revelations, and can be considered a prophet of God (since many of these revelations lead to belief in Jesus); To substitute terms such as "Son of God" and "Father" in the New Testament, for less offensive terms to Muslims, such as "Prince of Allah" and "King", respectively, in the evangelization discourse, and to use translations of the Bible made by other Western missionaries who make these substitutions; To continue reading and respecting the Qur’an as having authority as revelation, after all, much of what is in the Qu’ran is consistent with what the Bible says; To use the Qur’an to talk about Jesus to their Muslim relatives and friends; To continue practicing the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, to do the five prayers in the mosque (praying to God, in the name of Jesus, even in silence) and to confess the Shahada while focusing on Jesus (the Islamic confession that says "There is no more god except Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet"), as long as they keep their faith in Jesus Christ as their only savior; All this to make Christianity and the Church better accepted, not to appear like "foreigners" in that culture, and to minimize the possibilities of persecution of new believers on account of the new "explicit manifestations" of the Christian religion, responsible for the suffering and death of many Christians in the past. The testimony ends and the Church is truly impressed and happy to hear about the success of this new methodology used by the missionaries, after all, this may be the key to the opening of Muslim countries closed to the Gospel.   However, after the service, a group of young people from your church come to you and, excited by the testimony they have just heard ask: "What do you think about the testimony? What do you think about this new missionary strategy that works so well in these Muslim countries? Do not you think that more missionaries should learn and use this methodology? What do you think about all this?     What would be your answer to these young people?

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !143

INSIDER MOVEMENTS MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION Joshua B. Lingel & Bill Nikides Joshua Lingel is President of i2 Ministries whose sole function is to equip and train up the global church for the global challenge of Islam. Bill Nikides is a minister in the International Presbyterian church and works with i2 Ministries in Insider Movement Publications & SE Asia Ministry. For more information: www.i2ministries.org.

MISSIONARIES ARE DOING WHAT? Chrislam’s church/mosque members practice ‘running deliverance’ in Nigeria, believing both the Qur’an and Bible are holy texts. 179 That’s not the Chrislam of this article. Chrislam, others suggest, is the merger of Islam and Christianity as evidenced by the Common Word document.180 It’s pastors speaking in mosques, imams preaching in churches, and the Qur’an read to Christian congregations. It’s a growing concern—but that’s not the Chrislam of this article either. The Chrislam of this article is an actual missionary strategy for Muslim ministry. Some Western missionaries who endorse this Chrislam appeal to the early Church’s approach to the salvation of the Gentiles (Acts 15) and draw a parallel to contemporary evangelism, discipleship and church planting with Muslims. As one missionary describes Chrislamic missions: “If you are in a Muslim community, or a Buddhist community, or a Hindu community, you maintain that identity in that socio-religious community. That is where you work out your discipleship to Jesus. You follow Jesus as a Hindu, as a Muslim, as a Buddhist, or whatever other variety of socio-religious community you might be from.”181 Accordingly, this form of Chrislam has assumed 179

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam

180

http://www.acommonword.com/

H. L. Richard, “Unpacking the Insider Paradigm: An Open Discussion on Points of Diversity,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 26:4 (2009): 176. 181

! 144

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

another moniker—insider movements (IM)—based on its encouragement of the target group to remain “inside” their socio-religious community. The IM has taken root especially in Muslim contexts. SYMPTOMS OF CHRISLAM In the United States, missionaries teach conferences encouraging Christians to share Jesus from the Qur’an. For example, the “Jesus in the Qur’an” conferences (JIQ), exegete qur’anic verses about Jesus and give them new, Christianized meanings. Indeed, JIQ instructors say that the Qur’an teaches the Trinity, teaching attendees to “Start with what a Muslim knows, affirms and understands in the Qur’an”182 and that Sura 4:171 of the Qur’an teaches the Trinity: “…Christ Jesus the son of Mary was indeed an apostle of God and his word, which he bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him…”183 However, Muslim exegetes reject the Trinity and understand this verse as denying Jesus’ divinity. This Christianization of the Qur’an doesn’t create doors of opportunity for witness, it stirs emotions of hostility on the part of Muslims, and naturally so. Christians don’t appreciate it when Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Muslims reinterpret the Bible’s original meaning. It’s offensive and deceitful to take a Muslims scripture and making it say what it does not.184 The “Common Grounds” conferences have similar teachings. “Common Ground” is a broad-spectrum teaching that Christianizes the Qur’an and Islam. In doing so it inoculates those who go through the teaching against a proper understanding of this inherently anti-Christian religion. The Qur’an becomes a tool for evangelism, lending it credibility, rather than understanding it as a book that denies the crucifixion, 185 the Trinity,186 and Jesus as the Son of God. 187 This teaching strongly suggests that the legitimacy of Muhammad’s prophethood is a matter of personal Jesus in the Qur’an Conferences/Workbook, 2008 Edition, p. 36. Thanks to Adam Simnowitz for this. 182

183

Ibid.

Cf. Adam Simnowitz, “How Insider Movements Affect Ministry: Personal Reflections,” in Chrislam: How Missionaries Are Promoting an Islamized Gospel (Garden Grove, CA: i2 Ministries Press. 2011), 221–226. 184

185

S. 4:157

186

S. 5:73

187

S. 4:171. Jesus will come as a ruler, break the cross, kill the pigs and stop Jizya (Bukhari 3:656); Jesus will force people to convert to Islam (Bukhari 3:656); Jesus talked in a cradle (Bukhari 6:236); Jesus returns and kills Dajjal, fights Gog and Maggog (Muslim 4:7015); Descends in Damascus (Muslim 4:7015); People go to hell for associating divinity to Jesus (Muslim 4:6733)

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !145

choice for new believers; that is, rather than a false prophet, Muhammad may be considered prophet-like. Kevin Higgins, a noted IM proponent, is more direct in his unpublished paper circulated by former Muslims in 2007: “Perhaps one of the most intriguing developments in missiological discussion in the last 10 or more years has been the subject of so-called “insider movements”. Particular attention has been given to such movements within Islamic contexts. One of the major points debated in this discussion among practitioners and theorists is the question of the Islamic creed. In short, the question is: can a follower of Jesus, say with integrity the Islamic creed, There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah? In this paper I will seek to outline some biblical, historical, and Qur’anic basis for answering this question in the affirmative.” 188 “Common Ground” also teaches other troubling notions of the kingdom of God in which there is no difference between Islam and Christianity.189 Several years ago, I (Lingel) met a missionary at the national Vineyard Pastor’s conference. He said he was ministering in Indonesia and seemed to be acting as an imam (a Muslim prayer leader) of a masjid (a Muslim place of prayer) he had joined. He said he performed the salat or daily prayers and that he wanted to make the pilgrimage to Mecca (though his wife had not given her approval). This missionary also said he preached in the masjid on juma or Friday. I understood him to mean he preached the Islamic khutbah or traditional sermon that emulates Muhammad. Perhaps the most problematic thing about all this was that he was raising money with several Calvary Chapels, though I know they were unaware of the depths of his practices as a Chrislamic missionary. Recently someone returned from Afghanistan who reported that Western missionaries were participating in Insider Movement activities in mosques there.190 I (Lingel) have consulted with the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) on missions and evangelism among Muslims at various times. At a May 2009 consultation, SBC statistician, Dr. Jim Haney, stated that there are tens of thousands of Isa al-masih jamaats, or Jesus congregations, in northern Africa. But the members of these jamaats call themselves Muslims, do not believe in the Trinity and believe Muhammad is Kevin Higgins. Muhammad, Islam and the Qur’an (unpublished paper), 1-23. Despite its availability on the Internet, Muhammad, Islam, and the Qur’an, was never meant for publication according to the author. He has changed his mind about some of what he wrote in this early essay; however, the paper is helpful when examining the development of Insider Movements ideas, theology, and vocabulary. 188

Cf. Jay Smith, “An Assessment of IM’s Principle Paradigms,” in Chrislam (i2 Ministries, 2011), 278–296. 189

190

Leaving the names of individuals and organizations they represent out.

! 146

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

a prophet of God. Are they Christians or Muslims? Why talk about them in terms of missionary success? One battle internal to the SBC is the validity of utilizing the so-called Camel Method, a book developed by Kevin Greeson. It essentially utilizes many Qur’anic verses, rather than the Bible, to witness to Muslims. There are substantial critics of the method from within the SBC, from churchmen, North American Missions Board, Presidents of seminaries, to the highest officers as they recognize that the nature of it is antithetical to the clear witness of the Church. In Malaysia, so-called “Muslim-friendly” translations of the Bible are replacing Son of God with ‘prince’ [putera]. 191 Perhaps this does not seem important at first blush, but consider that at Jesus’ baptism the Father says, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased” (Matt. 3:17). In Muslim-friendly translations, Jesus is no longer Son to the Father; now he is ‘prince’, which is a functional denial of the historic formulation of the Trinity—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—if not an essential denial. And what happens to the Fatherhood of God if Jesus is no longer the Son? Again, the answer is quite obvious. Even more dramatic a change is the Arabic and Bangla (Bangladesh) translations. In Arabic, Bible translations err by translating “Father” as “Lord”, “Guardian”, “Most High” and “God.” 192 In Bangla, “Son of God” is mistranslated “Messiah of God” consistent with the Qur’an’s Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), which references the merely human Jesus.193 A translation team in Turkish, in part coordinated by Frontiers,194 produced a translation of Matthew. It doesn't use the literal word for "son" in Turkish, ("oğul") to refer to Jesus as Son of God. It uses a word that is closer in meaning to "representative" ("vekil"). And it doesn't use the literal word for "Father" ("Baba") to refer to God; it uses the word "mevla," which is a religious word that refers to God but A Muslim friendly translation, sometimes called “Muslim-compliant” or “Muslim idiom” translation, uses Islamic names and Arabic words or phrases for the sake of encouraging Muslims to read the Bible. Understanding that the idea of Jesus as the Son of God is blasphemous to Muslims, these translations might render son in a non-literal manner, thus removing the perceived offense; cf. Joshua Lingel, “Islamizing the Bible: Insider Movements and Scripture Translations,” in Chrislam (i2 Ministries, 2011), 156–172. Copies of Chrislam can be obtained at: www.i2ministries.org. 191

Joshua Lingel, “Islamizing the Bible: Insider Movements and Scripture Translations,” in Chrislam (i2 Ministries, 2011), 156–172. 193

194

www.frontiers.org

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !147

has no connotation of fatherhood. The Turkish church leadership has broadly rejected it. As one missionary there reports: “To obscure in Turkish what is very clear in Greek makes it unusable.” As Emily Belz reports, “Hersman estimated that of 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 "employ some alternate renderings" for the divine familial terms.”195 These projects need to be defunded. To legitimize this form of Chrislam, impressive statistics are touted, such as representations that there are up to 300,000-1.2 million new believers in a Muslim country that is not often named?196 In some missionary writings that country is Islampur, but really it’s Bangladesh. And in Bangladesh, the insider movements have wrought havoc for the existing church. The missionary proponents of IM tell the insiders—Muslims who come become Christians but remain inside Islam—they are not to have dealings with the existing church. The missionaries talk about the hundreds of thousands who have come to Christ, but one insider who left the IM and became a visible Christian reports that the number of insiders couldn’t be more than 10,000 in his country.197 Other former insiders have reported publicly that many insiders are really Muslims who will do whatever it takes for the jobs and money they are offered by proIM ministries to feed their families. Likewise, a significant percentage of insider leaders in Bangladesh were already baptized Christians who were convinced by missionaries to revert to their former Muslim identities. In other words, the IM of Bangladesh appears to be balderdash, a fund raising mechanism outside Bangladesh.198 IS THERE A CURE? IM proponents insist their approach is biblical and use both Old Testament and New Testament passages to legitimize their belief that Muslims can know Jesus yet remain inside Islam. Space does not permit examination of all passages Chrislamists use, but two favorite proof texts are instructive.

Emily Belz: “Holding Translators Accountable” http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18687. “Hersman estimated that of 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 "employ some alternate renderings" for the divine familial terms.” 195

Check Wikipedia, “House Church;” or see http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm? PID=18495&MID=44096, (Accessed on 12/15/2011) where the number is up to 800,000. 196

197

Personal correspondence with the author.

Cf. Bill Nikides, “Interview of a Former Insider, Anwar Hossein” In Chrislam (i2 Ministries, 2011), 228–237. 198

! 148

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Genesis 14: Melchizedek Higgins believes Melchizedek is an example of Yahweh acting like an insider, someone at work in another religious tradition. The application Higgins makes for today, of course, is that Yahweh is also working within Islam. Higgins writes, “Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek (a pagan priest of ‘God Most High’) shows us that the author of Genesis sees El and Yahweh as the same Being. The fact that Abraham offers a tithe suggests an acceptance of the validity of Melchizedek’s priesthood and thus, religion….an astonishing acknowledgement of God’s work in another religious tradition.” Higgins’ correctly observes that El and Yahweh are the same being and that Melchizedek is a Messianic antitype. The trouble is not his observations, but his conclusion. To illustrate, take the study of 100 recently deceased men and women, during which it was noted that just before dying each one drew a final breath and exhaled. Researchers concluded breathing causes death. Sometimes our observations do not necessarily lead to sound conclusions. And Higgins’ observations lead to fatal conclusions. The Who and What of Melchizedek Melchizedek is interesting because he suddenly pops in and out of the biblical narrative. His name appears twice in the Old Testament: Genesis 14 and Psalm 110:4. Although he is a person of keen interest, he remains a man of mystery. Indeed, even his role is a mystery. Is his appearance a Christophany? Is he a Messianic antitype, just an historical figure, or perhaps some combination? We have no record of Jesus uttering Melchizedek’s name, but He certainly understood Psalm 110, which mentions Melchizedek as messianic. The Psalm characterizes Melchizedek’s priesthood this way: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4, NASB). 199 As Messiah, Jesus would have understood his own priesthood, like Melchizedek’s, to be combined with kingship. And His priesthood would be unique in that it was not Levitical, which was hereditary. Jesus knew Melchizedek was a unique historical figure who foreshadowed him. Melchizedek’s Religion. Against this background, let’s examine Higgins’ use of Melchizedek to justify his Chrislam. Higgins reasons that Abraham offered a tithe to the priest, signifying Abraham accepted the religion as valid; therefore, God is at “work in another religious tradition.” What religious tradition was this and whose was it? Higgins doesn’t tell us. He leaves it as an imponderable. But the clue is in the wider context. 199

All Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !149

Noah was Abraham’s great predecessor. When he disembarked from the ark, among the first things he did was offer a sacrifice (Gen. 8:20). Where did Noah learn to sacrifice? We know that his sons, specifically Shem—whose descendants are mentioned both before and after Babel (Gen. 11:1-9)—would have witnessed the sacrifice. Abraham was in the line of Shem (Gen. 11:10-26). Continuing backward through Genesis, Noah’s great (to the seventh power) grandfather was Seth. After Seth fathered Enosh, “men began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26). So Seth taught Enosh to sacrifice, who taught his son, until it was eventually taught to Noah and then Shem. From Shem it finally reached Abraham. Adam taught Seth about sacrifice and we can rationally suppose that Adam was taught directly by Yahweh. Where does this take us? Remember that Higgins’ nebulously concludes that God is at “work in another religious tradition.” He even calls Melchizedek a “pagan priest.” How he concludes that Melchizedek was a pagan priest (ie. a priest of gods other than Yahweh) is mystifying. Melchizedek’s tradition is quite likely one that Yahweh himself initiated. Indeed, Yahweh clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins to hide their shame (Gen 3:21) and He accepted Abel’s animal sacrifice instead of Cain’s sacrifice of crops (Gen 4:4-5). Thus, if it’s true that Melchizedek is not following pagan traditions, then Yahweh is not at work inside another religious tradition, but inside His own—the very one He created. Although Robert Culver does not take the true worship of Yahweh back to Adam, but he says, “The appearance of Melchizedek in the Bible is important theologically. It lends strong support for the notion that knowledge of the true God possessed by Noah and his sons did not die out.”200 Altar-nate ending? This raises another question from Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek. What religion did Abram practice? Melchizedek had a relationship to Yahweh, though the particulars of his religious rites are unknown. Abraham wasn’t Jewish, and so it’s ironic that Higgins believes scripture tell us Melchizedek was of another religion—though it seems his religious tradition was not “another” but begun by God himself—while Abraham had a confirmed relationship with the Almighty without religion ever mentioned. Ironically, Higgins’ reliance on Melchizedek proves too much because his conclusion should be applied to Abraham rather than Melchizedek. Melchizedek’s encounter with Abraham is unique. It is not a an application from th the 18 century BC to the 21st century work among Muslims. No, the story uniquely indicates that Yahweh has been working throughout history. He called out a people for Himself through whom He would eventually send His Son as Redeemer for all those Richard D. Culver, “Melchizedek,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, v. ii. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 510. 200

! 150

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

ensnared in false religions. 2 Kings 5, Naaman the Syrian Higgins believes Naaman is the perfect picture of one who comes to faith yet remains in his religion, again, paralleling what is happening with Muslims. He writes, Naaman clearly changes at least some of his beliefs. He now acknowledges that there is no God in all the earth except ‘in Israel’. (v. 15) Yet, some of his old ways of thinking remain: since there is no God except in Israel, he asks for some of Israel’s dirt that he might take it with him to Aram (v. 17). The Prophet allows him to remain in this belief about the connection between the dirt of Israel and the God of Israel. The process of change in an insider’s belief system will be a dynamic one.201 Do we know what we don’t know? What really happened to Naaman? First, he made a genuine confession of faith in Yahweh: “I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel” (v. 15). And he simultaneously turned away from Rimmon, his former god. Second, Elisha does not comment on the notion that Naaman needed Israeli soil for worship (v. 17). To make too much of this is to argue from silence. At most, Naaman is just acknowledging that Yahweh is the only God and trying to connect to him as best he can within his own unbelieving culture. In fact, his actions imply that his own culture is hopelessly corrupted by false religion, but he, Naaman, will remain true to the only living God. Third, Naaman asks about the necessity of accompanying his master when the latter worships the god Rimmon. This implies that while his master bows, Naaman would help him worship while Naaman refrains. Fourth, Elisha said, “Go in peace.” While this certainly was not a condemnation of what Naaman was going to do, it is an acknowledgement that Naaman’s tender conscience is bruised by his duty to his king and that he does not need the added guilt. The nature of the request. What was the nature of Naaman’s request? Was it: “Elisha, when I am in the temple of Rimmon with my master, is it alright that I bow in worship to Rimmon as my master bows?” If this were the nature of the question, why did he ask forgiveness? Timothy Tennent concisely speaks to this point: “The one thing we do know is that the context of the passage is about Naaman asking for forgiveness for doing something which they both knew was wrong, not the Prophet’s blessing for promoting any activity or strategy or self-identity of Naaman as a follower of Rimmon.”202 Kevin Higgins, “Inside What? Church, Culture, Religion and Insider Movements in Biblical Perspective,” St Francis Magazine 5:4 (2009): 90. 201

Timothy C. Tennent, “Followers of Jesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques: A Closer Examination of C-5 High Spectrum Contextualization,” International Journal of Frontier Missions. 23:3 (2006): 108. 202

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !151

The key is that both Elisha and Naaman knew that worshipping Rimmon—now that Naaman was a changed man—was wrong. How is this parallel to what is happening to followers of Jesus who stay inside Islam? These insiders believe they are doing something right, even noble. For instance, Mazhar Mallouhi writes, “I was born into a confessional home. Islam is the blanket with which my mother wrapped me up when she nursed me and sang to me and prayed over me. I imbibed aspects of Islam with my mother’s milk. I inherited Islam from my parents and it was the cradle which held me until I found Christ. Islam is my mother. You don’t engage a person by telling them their mother is ugly.”203 I agree with Mallouhi that the worst way to begin a relationship with a Muslim is to call his “mother” ugly. But if Mallouhi were to ask me what I think about his mother, I’d encourage him this way: “You have new parents. You have been adopted into a new family because your mother has disowned you. You now have a Father! And he loves you enough to call you his son. Did your mother ever call you son or were you just her slave?” Shh! Silence is arguing. Whereas Naaman knew he should no longer go to Rimmon’s temple, his occupation required him to. This is in no way parallel to the insider position. Naaman had to do something that would appear to observers as worship, so he appealed for forgiveness, not blessing. Insiders, IM proponents tell us, are not compelled to remain inside Islam and they are doing nothing wrong by doing so. Naaman’s story does not justify the IM. There is too much divergence; there are no parallels to the Muslims context. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bible that supports insider movements. Likewise, God’s prohibition against worshipping other gods is the main context of the Old and New Testaments. 204 SHARING YOUR FAITH WITH A MUSLIM Prepare for Spiritual Warfare If Christians are properly prepared, Chrislam and IM don’t have to happen. Missionaries grounded in the scriptures will probably not make the same mistakes the proponents of IM have made. Dealing with Islam puts Christians in the center of a fierce spiritual battle. Spiritual forces holding captive more souls in Islam than any other religion. Paul tells 203

Mazhar Mallouhi, “Comments on the Insider Movement,” St Francis Magazine 5:5 (2009): 8.

David Talley, “Pagan Religious Practices and Heretical Teaching: What Is to Be Our Attitude? Gleanings from the Old and New Testaments,” in Chrislam (i2 Ministries, 2011). Also, Jeff Morton, “Theology of Religions: Would Jesus Be Caught Dead Working in Islam?” in Chrislam (i2 Ministries, 2011). 204

! 152

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

us, “The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4–5). Islam denies essential Christian doctrines, exalting itself against the knowledge of the true God. Christians wage war against Islam with spiritual weapons. These weapons are love and learning, knowledge, ideas, thoughts and arguments. Make Jesus Lord of your life (1 Peter 3:15). Don’t Fear Suffering The New Testament was written by suffering Christians, to suffering Christians, for suffering Christians. “All who desire to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim, 3:12). “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather, fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). “Perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). But the Qur’an says: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them” (Q8:12).205 The good news is that God has prepared for every believer a reward that cannot be imagined (1 Cor. 2:9). Therefore, you will -Authors would like to thank Abdu Murray and one other for their editorial advice. Questions: 1. Is it possible to be a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhists and follow Jesus in the context of a different religion? Why or why not? 2. If a Christian professor with a PhD in Intercultural and Islamic Studies came to you and said it was possible to say Muhammad is a prophet according to the bible; how would you correct him/her? 3. If a translator from one of the most reputable Evangelical translation or denominational organizations came to you and said that it was OK to remove "Father" and "Son" in missional bible translations among Muslims [Muslim Idiom Translations] what might you say or do to respond to the them? 4. Is it OK to preach Jesus, (Issa) from the Qur'an, as a Christian, why or why not?

205

A. Yusuf `Ali translation.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !153

VIDEO LESSON 8 Completing the Great Commission Among Muslims I. Introduction A. The world is much too interdependent for one organization to finish the GC B. Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s method is the global church C. God commissions ambassadors who go out to the world D. Rapid growth of Muslims 1. 1.6 billion Muslims 2. 37,000 Muslims die every day without the gospel E. The old strategy of sending missionaries from Europe and North America is not necessarily the best strategy II. A different model based on the shift of the Church A. Shift to the global south 1. Asia to 100 million 2. Africa to 370 million 3. Brazil is the third largest evangelical church in the world 4. Nigerians with a vision for sending missionaries into the world 5. i2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s training of Brazilian missionaries B. Strategy should mobilize the workers from the global catalytic movements in the global south C. 150,000 American missionaries now, but we need to acknowledge that we are part

! 154

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

of a global movement to reach Muslims D. We must unite the global church 1. The south has the people and the passion 2. The north has the resources to empower them 3. It is not about ethnic groups, but anointing III. Questions of training for missionaries in the face of resurgent Islam A. We must train and resource in apologetics and polemics B. Mosques train and resource or finance radicalized Muslims •

Pakistan Deobandi Muslims o Teach Muslims how to be good Muslims o Shari`a law o How to challenge Christians o From this the Taliban was born

i2 seeks to be a counter movement against these Islamic movements by mobilizing, train, and energize Christians to finish the great commission among Muslims C. The challenge of Islam 1. Islam began as an anti-Christian polemic 2. Islam tries to reset the biblical history, making it Islamic 3. Muslims have made Islam look rational, but it can be easily deconstructed from within

J. P. Moreland, “No movement can flourish unless you have articulate advocates that can debate and argue at the public level.”

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !155

4. Muslims are creating a counterpunch to the Christian faith a. Internet allows one to download whatever information one needs for the sake of polemics b. Ahmed Deedat, South Africa, Shabir Ally, Canada, Zakir Naik, India are all top apologists 5. Media lobbyists and other influential moves in society by Muslims 6. Islam is working on many levels, through many channels to expand its influence 7. The Church must respond and contend for souls in the market place of ideas of Islam a. The Church needs a body of believers who know how to respond to the trends of Islam b. The Church needs to redeem the culture c. We need to create training from scholars to oral learners IV. What is Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heart? Who are the least reached? A. Muslims, 1.57 billion B. Hindus, 900 million C. Buddhists, 364 million D. But church leaders are not taught how to reach Muslims, but skeptics and atheists E. Whoever controls the thinking of the Church, controls the Church as well F. In Europe, churches being turned into mosques G. West is in a cultural matrix funk

! 156

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

V. How do we understand what it means to make the GC our central mission? A. Task has shifted from the Church to universities and missions 1. All of us must be trained, though seminary is not part of the equation 2. Church is struck with fear or indifferent 3. Greatest problem in the world is nominal Christianity 4. We must become good kingdom disciples with training in the Church B. Targeting and training the catalytic movements 1. Turning churches into training structures 2. i2 Ministries has a diverse training method 3. Our trainers are from all over the world 4. Mission Muslim World University 5. Our training is not just intellectual, but spiritual as well 6. Our training model provides the tools and the evangelist becomes God’s tool 7. We will create a new kind of Christian – better informed, more access to more information 8. As the issues change, we can create new classes 9. We have created a very diverse education, the best expression of the global church, and it is a countermovement against the radical Muslims 10. Accessible to the entire Church VI. Leadership in the Church A. Spiritual leaders get people onto God’s agenda for their lives

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !157

B. Leaders help define reality 1. Help people to see better 2. For i2, that means focus on the largest group: Islam C. Training will help us finish the GC by making disciples D. Pastors and shepherds need to mobilize their people to reach the Muslims E. Worship leaders must mobilize the hearts of the people to reach the Muslims VII. Resourcing the mission A. How much money will it take? B. Money from Saudi Arabia continues fund the Muslim effort

What the Southern Baptists spend on missions in one year, Saudi Arabia spends in three days

C. Sufficient funding must be there to finish the Great Commission VIII. Conclusion A. By a spirit led strategy the vacuum can be filled B. From raising scholars to creating training tools, God can use the West and the Global church to finish the Great Commission Application: Please go to page 315 and fill out the Video Lesson 8 Application sheet.

! 158

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

FINAL ACTIVITY A. Sit around the room, separated from each other (if possible), for this moment of reflection and individual prayer. B. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you remember what you have learned so far? What has Holy Spirit spoken to you specifically about your role in the mission that the Lord is doing in the world through the Church. D. Write any perception, impression, message, and words that the Lord communicated to you during this particular time. G. Reflect and take notes on the practical initiatives that, in your opinion, the Church in your country need to undertake in order to effectively fulfill their role in bringing the Gospel to the Muslims of the world, in the following areas: a. Reaching the Muslims in your region b. Awakening and mobilizing believers of all ages. c. More training for the vocation to missions. d. Prayer and intercession. e. Investment of financial resources. f. Integral care and support for missionaries sent.

Space provided to write on Pages 316-319

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !159

FACING THE MUSLIM CHALLENGE A HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN — MUSLIM APOLOGETICS by JOHN GILCHRIST

Introduction The Christian-Muslim Cutting-Edge Great conflicts come and go but one, which has endured for nearly fourteen centuries, appears destined to remain until the end. It is the classic battle – a universal one which outlives every generation. It is the struggle between Islam and Christianity for the souls of all who live on earth. Although mostly unrecognized, it is probably the supreme contest – one which tackles the greatest of issues, namely the very purpose of human existence and its ultimate destiny. Each has its own figurehead who is claimed to be God’s final messenger to all mankind – Jesus Christ the Savior of the world or Muhammad the universal Prophet to the nations. Each has its own mission – the spread of the Gospel to the ends of the earth or the establishment of an ummah (community) which covers the globe. Each, likewise, has its own conviction of its ultimate triumph over all the philosophies, religions and powers that have challenged human allegiance. It is only natural that they should come into conflict. This book tackles the cutting-edge between Islam and Christianity, in particular the arguments Muslims employ in discussion or debate with Christians to establish the preeminence of Islam by rigorously refuting the authenticity of the Christian scriptures and its fundamental doctrines. Any Christian who engages Muslims in conversation will soon find that they are equipped with an armory of objections which they will interject into the conversation to undermine the Gospel message and distract the Christian by placing him firmly on the defensive.

Islam’s Onslaught against Christianity

! 160

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

The challenge goes back to the time of Muhammad himself. The Qur’an, the Muslim holy book, has numerous polemical passages confronting Christian beliefs, not only opposing them but proposing rational arguments to disprove them. In the early centuries of Islam Muslim scholars wrote numerous disputations challenging the integrity of the Bible (Ibn Hazm), the doctrine of the Trinity (Abu Isa al-Warraq), the social structure of Christian Society (Al-Jahiz) while also arguing forcefully that Muhammad is foretold in both the Old and New Testaments (Ali Tabari). Modern times have seen polemical material mass-produced for distribution throughout the world, in particular the booklets of Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim propagandist from my own country, South Africa. Christians have been equally confrontational at times, powerfully calling the credentials of Muhammad’s prophethood into question and producing numerous evidences against the assertion that the Qur’an is the Word of God. In both cases the thrust has often been strongly partial and imbalanced. The finest ideals of the adherent’s faith are often set in contrast to the worst excesses of the other’s in practice without the debater apparently being aware of the unfairness of his method. For example, the Christian may argue forcefully that women are treated very poorly in parts of the Muslim world in contrast with the Biblical teaching that they are entitled to enjoy equality in a monogamous marriage (Ephesians 5:28-33) without taking the prevalence of divorce and immorality in traditional Christian societies in the Western world into account. Likewise a Muslim will teach that Islam is the religion of perfect peace while ignoring the numerous conflicts in the Muslim world and the bombings of embassies, aircraft, trade centers and the like in the name of Islam. Muslims will also claim that the universal unity of the Muslim world compares favorably with the numerous divisions in Christian churches while ignoring the vast numbers of conflicting sects in Islam and the fact that Islamic unity is really a uniformity of worship only based on the strictly prescribed nature of Muslim prayers, fasting, ablutions and the Hajj pilgrimage. In this book my aim is to deal mainly with Muslim arguments against Christianity, providing Christians with effective answers to their contentions. I have had the privilege of engaging in discussion with thousands of Muslims in South Africa over twenty-five years and must have heard just about every objection that they could possibly raise to the Christian faith and its scriptures. I have also perused all the Muslim booklets listed in the Bibliography at the end of this book. I can, with genuine conviction, say that I have never heard a Muslim argument that cannot be legitimately and adequately answered. The arguments listed in the following chapters are those most commonly put forward by Muslims in personal conversation and are presented in an objection/answer form to give Christians firsthand examples of how to counter them.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !161

Muslim Attitudes which Frustrate Christians What I have often discovered in lively debate with Muslims is certain attitudes on their part that are calculated to hinder profitable discussion. At best Christians and Muslims should argue their positions with a common goal to discover God’s ultimate truths. What often happens, however, is that Muslims seek only to frustrate Christian witness, putting forward their arguments as a smokescreen rather than as a platform for healthy interaction. Objections are regularly stated without any opportunity being given for a Christian reply. For example, I have often heard questions such as "How can God have a Son when he has no wife?", "If Christ died for your sins, does this mean you can sin as much as you like?", etc., as if the objection itself proved the point and was the last word on the subject. The Muslim often does not want to hear a reply, let alone an effective refutation! Very few Muslims have a real understanding of Christianity as is abundantly evidenced in the booklets they produce against it. Christians are accused of believing in three gods, the New Testament is presumed to be a changed version of the Old Testament which is assumed to be the original scripture, while the deity of Jesus Christ is discounted on physical grounds, it being alleged that God cannot have a Son without a wife even though the Qur’an itself, in Surah 19:20-21, teaches that by God’s power and decree Mary could have a son even though she had no husband! Christians need to show much patience when reasoning with Muslims in such cases. Another source of frustration is the inclination on the part of many Muslims to freely assail the authenticity of the Bible or basic Christian beliefs while at the same time becoming highly offended when the tables are turned on the Qur’an and Islam. Yet again Christians need to be tolerant and remain focused in such cases, not resorting to a similar approach in return. Other Muslims will argue purely to find fault with no desire to hear reasonable answers. I have often had encounters where Muslims have boldly proclaimed an objection against a tenet of our faith which I have taken time to effectively answer. Often the answer cannot be given as briefly or emphatically as the argument is proclaimed. Nevertheless, even though the Muslim has made no effort to counter the explanation, he will at a later date triumphantly repeat the same argument as if no refutation had ever been given. Patience and perseverance are necessary in such cases! Prejudices are not easily removed.

Muslim Arguments Need to be Answered

! 162

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Some might say, "Why argue at all?" – why not just exchange our different beliefs in a spirit of mutual understanding and leave the issues between our faiths alone? There are a number of reasons why Christians, if they are to be true to their faith and themselves, must be willing to answer Muslim objections and counter their arguments. Firstly, if you cannot defend your faith, the Muslim will conclude that you may be fervent in your beliefs but cannot justify them. Your unwillingness to tackle the cuttingedges will persuade the Muslim that your religion is actually indefensible. Secondly, when you can not only state what you believe but can also effectively say why, the Muslim will be more inclined to listen to you, knowing you have personally tested the credibility of your beliefs and can convincingly defend them. Thirdly, when Muslims do become Christian believers, they invariably want to know right away what the evidences are for the faith they now profess, especially as they may well be challenged by Muslims to revert to Islam and will need to be well-trained to resist such pressures. The Apostle Peter stated very plainly that Christians must be ready to face the challenges put to them and also finely stated the spirit in which they should respond: Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Peter 3:15-16 The Apostle Paul never shirked the duty to substantiate what he believed with adequate proofs. While in the company of contentious Jews who thrived on controversy, he would "argue with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead" (Acts 17:2). He was not interested in a mere exchange of religious views, hoping his Gospel message would prove attractive enough merely by its presentation. He knew he had to be able to accredit everything he said if his detractors were to take him seriously. On another occasion he said "We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5), proving himself to be a man who had mastered his subject and fully confident in his ability to endorse the truth of what he believed. In Muslim evangelism it is essential that the Christian be able to counter the objections and arguments Muslims readily produce. In the next section we shall consider the spirit in which the Christian should respond.

The Christian Response: Right Methods and Approaches The chapters of this book give examples of effective ways of answering the commonest Muslim arguments against the Bible and its teaching. It is essential that the content of

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !163

these examples be sound and convincing. Nonetheless this book would be seriously incomplete if some attention was not given to the manner in which the Christian should conduct himself while in discussion with Muslims. The spirit of our approach is as important in making a genuine impact on Muslims as the substance of our arguments.

Examples of Wrong Approaches and Attitudes There are many ways in which Christians damage their witness to Muslims of which three will be considered here.

1. The Spirit of Triumphalism Many years ago I attended a public meeting in Durban, South Africa, where up to two thousand Christians and Muslims were waiting for the local City Hall to open its doors. Entrance had been delayed and the crowd simply stood outside in silence. Dr Anis Shorrosh, a Palestinian Christian, had advertised the meeting as a rebuff to Ahmed Deedat, the local Muslim champion of anti-Christian polemics, having challenged him publicly to have the courage to share the platform with him. The atmosphere outside the hall, understandably, was tense. Suddenly one of the local Christian pastors shouted to one of his friends, "let’s sing a few songs to the Lord". They began by boldly singing the chorus Let God arise and let his enemies be scattered which was soon followed up triumphantly with In the name of Jesus we have the victory, in the name of Jesus demons will have to flee. Unfortunately the "demons" did not flee – they fought back. And they won! A Muslim soon interrupted the singing with a bold chant of Allahu Akbar! In no time one thousand Muslims roared to the incessant chant of Allahu Akbar! (Allah is Most Great) which was soon followed up with La ilaha illullah! (There is no God but Allah) in great unison and purpose until the Christian chorus-singing was thoroughly drowned out and silenced. A Christian bystander nervously asked me "What are they singing?" (this was still in the heyday of Islamic revolutionism and frenzied fundamentalism) to which I replied "Calm down, they are merely chanting that God alone is Great". It is easy to boldly sing such choruses in the comfort of Christian fellowships when no one else is listening. Triumphalism is a common feature of many contemporary forms of Christian worship. It has no place, however, in the frontline of Christian-Muslim interaction. We are called to be a humble people speaking in a spirit of love to all we meet. It has well been said that our aim is to win Muslims to Christ, not to win a battle for Christianity.

! 164

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Christians must avoid the temptation to try to lord their faith over Muslims. Likewise we need to resist the inclination to try to prove points simply to win a debate. The hearer himself is our major point of concern. All we say and the spirit in which we do it must be geared to win the confidence, hearing and goodwill of our opposite number. Our approach should be that which is enjoined in this passage: Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer every one. Colossians 4:6 In various seminars I have repeatedly urged Christians to memorize the following proverb – if necessary to write it out one thousand times until it sinks in: I-S-L-A-M stands for I Shall Love All Muslims! I have heard it said that Christians must hate Islam but love the Muslim. May I suggest it would be more appropriate to love all Muslims and to strive to understand Islam. The more you learn about the Muslim faith, the more you will learn to respect it (I speak from personal experience) and the more Muslims will respect you and be willing to listen to you. When Christians show that they have gone to much trouble to find out sincerely what Muslims believe and to become acquainted with the Qur’an and the Islamic heritage, Muslims invariably respond by becoming more inclined to enter into serious discussion rather than sheer debate and argument. We need to earn the right to be heard.

2. The Inclination to Demonize and Misrepresent Islam Many Christian writers and public speakers have assailed Islam by ignoring its actual history and basic teachings while projecting false assumptions instead which are much easier to vilify and condemn. Some years ago in my own country, South Africa, a public campaign was launched by certain Christian leaders against the Muslim halaal symbol which appears on the wrappings of margarine, poultry and other products in local supermarkets. It was claimed that this was a sign which indicated that the product had been offered as a sacrifice to the Muslim idol, Allah, and that Christians should not eat such products as Paul forbade the eating of foods sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 10:19-22. Other recent Christian publications have claimed that Allah was the "moon-god" of the pagan Arabs prior to Islam and that the god of the Muslims is, in effect, really only a cult-god. Once you classify Allah in Islam as a false god or idol it becomes that much easier to attack Muslim beliefs. In discussion with Muslims such falsehoods must be avoided. Allah is the universal Arabic name for the only Supreme Being of the whole

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !165

universe and is freely used by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. Likewise the halaal symbol is purely an indication that the product is "loosed" from any restrictions and may freely be eaten. In a way it means the exact opposite of what some Christians have alleged (the contrary word haraam is used in Islam to describe foods set apart for non-consumption such as swine-flesh) and certainly never indicates that the food has been offered in any kind of sacrifice. Another popular Christian fallacy being widely promoted (and unfortunately believed) these days is that Islam was originally a Catholic conspiracy to eliminate Jews and Christians who refused to bow to the Vatican’s authority. Muhammad was supposedly deceived by an ingenious plot whereby his wife Khatija, said to be a Catholic spy, motivated him to become a great leader to execute the Vatican’s designs and purposes. Unfortunately, as Islam became strong with Vatican financial support, it rebelled and took its own way through history. This story is not only fanciful in the extreme, defying all the extensive historical records of Muhammad’s life and Islam’s beginnings, but has been promoted by one Dr Alberto Rivera purely on hearsay from a Jesuit cardinal known as Augustine Bea in secret briefings said to have taken place within the Vatican. Even though it is based on pure falsehood, large numbers of Christians (who often know little else about Islam) fervently believe it and bring it up in discussion with Muslims. In promoting error you can only drive Muslims further from the truth. Christians need to strive at all times to be truthful in their witness and objective in their perspectives. Be true to the Word of God, to the credible records of history, and avoid trying to gain an advantage over Islam by pursuing false charges against it.

3. Negative and Militant Attitudes towards Muslims About a thousand years ago the world saw the beginning of a new Christian approach to Islam which was to dominate the Middle East for three centuries. The Crusades, up to fourteen in all, were launched from Western Europe against the Muslim world in an attempt to wrest much of it for Catholic Christianity, in particular the holy sites in Jerusalem, so that Christian pilgrimages could freely take place and so that a dominant Christian presence and power might be maintained in the region. Many paintings survive of battles between Christians and Muslims, the Christian soldiers invariably holding a sword in one hand and a shield with a painted cross on it in the other. The Christians were undoubtedly the aggressors and the Muslim world endured a series of wars, conflicts and campaigns that can only be described as an exercise in Christian jihad. The First Crusade, promoted by Pope Urban II, was surprisingly

! 166

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

successful for, even though the Christian armies were small, they caught the Muslims unawares and, under leaders such as Godfrey de Bouillon, conquered many cities including Jerusalem, ruthlessly putting Jews and Muslims to the sword until their blood flowed in the streets. Later crusades were neither as successful nor as brutal as the initial ventures but they left a legacy of Christian-Muslim hostility that endures to this day. Modern Christian militancy against Islam takes a less violent form but is still prevalent. "We are at war with Islam" is a rallying call I have personally heard Christians declare and it leads to a negativity towards Muslims which they can easily sense. As our Savior is described as the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6) such an approach hardly seems appropriate. Should our mission not rather be seen as a peace campaign? Instead of harping on embassy bombings, international hijackings, incidents such as the downing of an American airline over Lockerbie in Scotland and the like which cultivate a negative sentiment towards Muslims, we should surely rather develop an attitude of goodwill and love towards them. Likewise we should be willing to give ourselves sacrificially in witness and service just as Jesus Christ did for us when he did not count our faults against us but willingly gave his own life to bring us back to God. Only when we are willing to love Muslims irrespective of who they are or what they might have done will we be truly able to manifest the love of Jesus towards them and fulfill the fundamental purpose of our witness – to draw them to his grace and salvation.

Important Principles in our Approach to Muslims At a more practical level let us have a look at certain principles of witness we should endeavor to express while either witnessing to Muslims or engaging in argument with them.   1. Fairness, Patience and Gentleness You no doubt are familiar with the saying "Keep your head even while all around are losing theirs". Muslims often, in argument with Christians, deliberately harass and challenge with the main purpose of rattling the Christian until he loses his temper or becomes angry and offended. This to them is a sign that they have won the day and that the Christian’s response is a proof that he cannot answer their objections. It is essential to maintain composure all the time and, even if you find Muslims frustrating and annoying, to keep up a spirit of quiet goodwill and reasoned conversation. Likewise do not be surprised or deflated when they attack the very core of your message. Muslims are trained in anti-Christian arguments. Picture the fervent

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !167

evangelist knocking on a Muslim door for the first time. When the Muslim opens he declares "I have come to tell you the glorious news of God’s Son Jesus Christ who died for you that you might be forgiven and go to heaven". He might well expect the hearer to respond "Why, this is the most wonderful thing I have ever heard in my life. Where can I be baptized?" If so, he is likely to be sorely disappointed. He is far more likely to be confronted with this sort of response: "God has no partners! Where did he get a Son from? Who was God’s wife? How could he let his Son die anyway? Have you got sons? Would you just stand by watching while criminals murdered them? You want us to believe God did nothing to save his own Son? What sort of a Father is that? Anyway, no one can die for your sins – every soul bears the burden of its own guilt. If Christ died for you, does this not give you the right now to sin as you like seeing you are already forgiven?" Muslims readily reduce Christian witness to a level of debate, conflict and argument. This cannot be avoided. Christians at such times will need to reason fairly with them, endeavoring to provide solid answers to their arguments, and do so in a spirit of gentleness and patience.   2. Avoid Quarreling and Disputations While accepting that it is essential to answer Muslim arguments, it needs also to be said that you should never let what started out as a healthy witness degenerate into nothing more than quarreling and controversy. The Apostle Paul says: Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. 2 Timothy 2:23-25 Misconceptions must be gently but effectively removed wherever possible. A patient but well-reasoned answer may not immediately appear to have had an effect where the Muslim is either promoting his own triumphalism or is heated and aggressive and will not freely listen to you, but in the long term the impact will inevitably be more profound. When the atmosphere has quietened and the dust is no longer flying around your confident and assured response will be remembered. Whatever you do, do not be the one who first provokes arguments and disputes.   3. Be Serious About your Faith Witnessing to God’s grace in Jesus Christ is one of the most important and serious things you can ever do in your life. In conversation with Muslims avoid flippancy and

! 168

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

irreverence. Let the Muslim know, especially if he argues with you in a spirit of ridicule or casualness, that you take your faith very seriously and wish to discuss any points he may raise in that spirit. Even in normal Christian witness it is important to maintain a right spirit and seriousness about your message. After all, you want him to be serious about it too. Just recently, after a solid witness to a Muslim on all the greatest points of our Christian faith, I discovered on leaving his home that he supported the same English football team as me – Manchester United. As all good Muslims in South Africa support United (the rest back Liverpool and Arsenal) I immediately took the conversation to the team, knowing from experience that a shared interest is often a door to a Muslim’s heart and interest in you. On this occasion, however, I discovered I had made a far greater impact than I had thought and he quickly changed the subject back to my message again. "My mother is a Christian and converted from Islam some years ago. She has a peace I genuinely want. I was really moved by your message and will keenly read your literature". I knew immediately that I had to leave him right there and promised to see him again soon. At such times the seriousness of our ministry to turn people to the knowledge of Jesus has to prevail. We must never lose it.   4. Be Biblical in your Responses I cannot emphasise this point strongly enough. When discussing the Trinity, for example, it is often tempting to reason theologically and doctrinally, trying to explain how God can be three persons in one being. I have often found that, after a while, I am as confused as the Muslim about this profound subject! There is so much of it that I do not understand and, quite frankly, do not think we are meant to understand. At other times Christians try to use illustrations to explain the doctrine, such as H20 which is a single substance but can be steam, water or ice. Or the egg illustration is used (yolk, white and shell in one egg). Muslims will hardly understand the Trinity through such reasonings. In the section on The Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this book I have shown how a Biblical presentation of the role of the three persons is without doubt the most powerful means of dealing with this subject while at the same time allowing you to resume the initiative and get back to genuine witnessing. The Bible itself says: For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 Know your Bible. The more you can master the Word of God, the more effective you will become in your discussions with Muslims. It is our finest handbook and is the

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !169

means the Holy Spirit uses above all others to stir the hearer to respond to the Christian message. There is a power in the Word and very often, while finding myself on the defensive while trying to explain things in human terms, I have found that new authority comes once the Bible is quoted and again made the source of my witness. Often nothing needs to be proved – the Bible only needs to be quoted properly and it will make its own impact on the objector. Naturally, when the attack is on its own teaching and contents, human reasoning is needed, but by keeping your response Biblical the greatest influence is likely to be obtained. Try to avoid being rational or theological with Muslims. You cannot reason people into the kingdom of God – they need to respond to a message of God’s grace and forgiveness from their hearts and that requires not just an assent to the truth but a repentance and conviction deep within. And the Bible is the best tool for achieving this end. Do what you can to get Muslims to read it!   5. Use Objections as an Opportunity for Witness This is my last point but most certainly not the least. It will appear constantly in this book. Do what you can to use the Muslim’s arguments to strengthen your witness to them. It helps to get you back to where you really want to be – challenging the Muslim to respond to your message and the claims of Christ on his soul. Let’s go back to an argument I have already mentioned, let’s expand it a bit, and see how it can be turned around into an opportunity to emphasize the Gospel message. The Muslim says "How can God let his Son die? We only regard Jesus Christ as a prophet and yet we honor him and God by believing that God delivered him from the cross. Yet you claim he was God’s Son but teach that God did nothing while they crucified him. How can you expect us to believe this?" The argument is usually sincere – the Muslim genuinely believes its logic, especially as sons are treasured in Muslim families throughout the world. One Muslim took it further with me. "How many sons have you got?" he asked me. I responded "two". "Well" he responded, "if you saw a group of thugs attacking just one of them and could see they were going to kill him, would you not go to his rescue? Do you not love your son?" As soon as you fall into the trap and simply answer "yes", the Muslim closes the argument – that is precisely what a good heavenly Father would have done for his Son. I responded "Let me strengthen your argument further before I answer it. What if you saw me walking down the road with a knife in my own hand and my son in the other, intending to kill him myself. Would that not be far worse?" He agreed (and fell into my

! 170

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

trap!). I continued "Then how can you believe that Abraham was such a great prophet and father when that is precisely what he did. He prepared one day to kill his own son according to the Qur’an (Surah 37:102-103). God told Moses ‘You shall not kill’ (Exodus 20:13) – How can you think well of Abraham when he was prepared to do this to his very own son?" He emphatically replied (and I am quoting him!): "You do not understand. That was different! (my emphasis). It was a test of his love for God. If a man will give his son for God, he’ll give anything for him!" The door was open for a more effective witness than any normal presentation of the Gospel message would have achieved. "Exactly", I replied, "and that is precisely what we are saying about God. He did not stand by watching, he willingly gave his Son for us to save us from our sins. It was the greatest proof of his love that he likewise could have given. John 3:16!" I continued "God spared the son of Abraham but he did not spare his own Son. God showed, in commanding Abraham to give the best proof of his love for God by sacrificing his son, just what he was going to do by giving the greatest manifestation of his love for us. Christians know that in the cross God has done the very best he could for us. Does Islam have anything to compare with this? Has Allah ever matched Abraham’s supreme example of sacrificial love?" What started as a Muslim offensive against the Gospel ended as a more purposeful witness than I could possibly have given had he never raised his arguments. Use Muslim arguments to strengthen your witness. Take the Muslim away from objections and disputes as far as you can and bring the discussion back to where it should be – evangelistic witness. In conclusion I can only again emphasize that it is just as important to take care how you approach Muslims as what you actually say. Be sure that all you do and say is done in a spirit of genuine love for them. John Gilchrist.  Benoni, South Africa.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !171

Chapter 1

The Integrity of the Bible The Textual Authenticity of the Qur’an and the Bible

1.1 The Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Muslim: Your Bible does not contain the original scriptures revealed to Moses, Jesus and the other prophets. It has been changed many times. Our learned maulanas have taught us this. What proofs do you have that your Bible is totally authentic and reliable? Many years ago a young Muslim woman asked me "Has the Bible ever been changed?" I answered that it most certainly had not, to which she responded "But does it not teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" I confirmed that it does – again and again – to which she replied "Then it must have been changed". Any Christian who reads through the Muslim publications in the bibliography at the end of this book will be surprised to find that the arguments produced to disprove the integrity of the Bible are often extremely weak and unconvincing. There is only one reason for this – the Muslims do not believe that the Bible has been changed because they have discovered adequate evidences that it has but because they have to disprove its authenticity to maintain their conviction that the Qur’an is the Word of God. Two conflicting books cannot both be the Word of God. Once the Muslims discovered, in the early centuries of Islam, that the Bible emphatically taught fundamental Christian doctrines such as the deity and redeeming work of Jesus Christ they could no longer approach it objectively. Ever since they have sought to prove what is nothing more than a presupposition. The Bible must have been changed! The major reason why Muslims do not believe in its integrity is that they have no choice but to do so if they are to sustain their confidence in the Qur’an. It is important to know what the evidences are for the Bible’s textual authenticity, especially the fact that we have actual manuscripts going back centuries before Islam that show that the Bible we have in our hands today is precisely that which the Jews and Christians of ancient times alone knew as their holy scripture.

! 172

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

The Three Great Ancient Codices There are three great manuscripts still existing of the Bible in Greek (containing the Septuagint of the Old Testament and original Greek text of the New) dating centuries before the time of Muhammad. They are: 1. Codex Alexandrinus This volume, written in the fifth century after Christ, contains the whole Bible except for a few leaves lost from the New Testament (Matthew 1:1 - 25:6, John 6:50 - 8:52 and 2 Corinthians 4:13 - 12:6). Nothing is contained in it that is not part of our current Bible. The manuscript is in the British Museum in London. 2. Codex Sinaiticus This very ancient text, dating from the late fourth century, contains the whole of the New Testament and much of the Old. Preserved for centuries in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg in Russia, it was sold for one hundred thousand pounds to the British Government and is also now kept in the British Museum. 3. Codex Vaticanus Probably the oldest surviving manuscript of the whole Bible, it was written in the fourth century and is preserved in the Vatican Library in Rome. The last part of the New Testament from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Revelation is written in a different hand to the rest of the manuscript (the original scribe probably was not able to complete the text through death or some other cause). These manuscripts prove conclusively that the only scriptures in the hands of the Church at least two hundred years prior to Muhammad’s time were the Old and New Testaments as we know them.

Other Early Evidences of the Integrity of the Bible There are numerous other evidences for the integrity of the Bible dating from many centuries before Islam. In discussion with Muslims you should emphasize the following:

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !173

1. The Hebrew Massoretic Texts Not only do Christians possess early Biblical manuscripts but Jews likewise, who hold to the Old Testament as the only scripture ever written for them, possess texts in the original Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was originally written, going back at least a thousand years. They are known as the Massoretic texts. 2. The Dead Sea Scrolls First discovered in caves in the wilderness of Qumran around the Dead Sea in Israel, these contain numerous portions of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew dating back to the second century beforeChrist. No less than two copies of the Book of Isaiah were included in this collection containing predictions of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53:1-12), his virgin-birth (Isaiah 7:14) and his deity (Isaiah 9:6-7). 3. The Septuagint This is the title of the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek. It was likewise transcribed in the second century before Christ, containing all the great prophecies to the coming of the Messiah, the fact that he is the Son of God (Psalm 2:7, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14), as well as details of his suffering and atoning death (Psalms 22 and 69). The early Church freely used the Septuagint. 4. The Latin Vulgate The Roman Catholic Church translated the whole Bible into Latin in the fourth century after Christ using the Septuagint and ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Vulgate dates from the fourth century after Christ and contains the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as we know them. It was established as the standard text for the Roman Church. 5. Portions of the Greek New Testament There are numerous pages, fragments and portions of the original Greek New Testament surviving from as early as the second century after Christ. They all, taken together, form the contents of the New Testament as we know it. It is very interesting to compare this wealth of evidence with the texts which exist for the oldest of the Greek and Roman classics, many of which date not earlier than a thousand years after Christ. In fact no other ancient writings from the same era have such a mass of manuscript evidence as that for the Greek New Testament. What is most important and must be emphasized with Muslims is that there is no alternative source of evidence suggesting that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ were

! 174

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

substantially other than that which is recorded in the Bible. All the apocryphal writings rejected by the Church at least generally follow the same threads as those in the New Testament manuscripts. Certainly no historical evidence from the same period exists to suggest that he was really the prophet of Islam which the Qur’an makes him out to be. In conclusion it is useful to challenge the Muslim to produce historical evidences to substantiate their argument that the Bible as we know it has been changed. What was it originally? What, precisely, was changed to make it the book it is today? Who made these changes? When were they made? Once you challenge any Muslim to identify the actual people who are supposed to have corrupted the Bible, at what time in history it took place, and precisely what textual changes were made to original manuscripts, you will find them entirely unable to do so. Such evidences quite simply do not exist. Always remember – the Muslim onslaught comes not from a scholarly examination of the evidences but from a necessary presupposition. The Bible, in their minds, must have been changed if it contradicts the Qur’an and unfortunately Muslims all too often pick up a Bible, not to read it or understand its teachings, but purely to find fault with it to justify their prejudices against it.

1.2 The Early Different Qur’an Codices Muslim: Fortunately our Qur’an has been preserved intact without so much as a letter being lost or out of place. It has never been changed, unlike the Bible, and this proves undoubtedly that the Qur’an is the infallible Word of God. From early childhood Muslims are taught one of the greatest of all fallacies – that the Bible has been corrupted while the Qur’an has been miraculously safeguarded from change. The truth is that the evidence for the textual authenticity of the Bible is far greater than that for the Qur’an. Considering also the fact that the Bible contains sixtysix books compiled over a period of nearly two thousand years while the Qur’an, a much newer book, derives from only one man during a short period of twenty-three years, there is every good reason to believe that it is the Bible that has a greater claim to be the preserved Word of God. Let us consider, in contrast to the evidences we have for Biblical manuscripts, what happened to the earliest codices of the Qur’an.

The Original Compilation of the Qur’an Text During Muhammad’s lifetime the Qur’an was fully never written down or collected into a single text. In one of the most reliable records of Muhammad’s life and teachings it is stated that the Qur’an came down to him most abundantly just before his death and

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !175

that this period was the time of the greatest part of its revelation (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 474). Thus there was no reason to attempt to collect it into one book, especially as more portions could be expected as long as Muhammad remained alive. It was only after Muhammad’s death that the first attempts were made to compile written manuscripts of the whole Qur’an text. The same source states that Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s immediate successor, encouraged a well-known reciter of the Qur’an, Zaid ibn-Thabit, to collect it. This young man recorded that he had to acquire it from various sources, namely palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones and other materials upon which parts of it had been recorded as well as from the memories from those who learnt it by heart. At least one verse was found with only one person, Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Taken together, these were hardly the ideal source for a perfect, inerrant compilation. At the time this manuscript had very little significance other than being commissioned by the Caliph himself. It receded into the private custody of Hafsah, one of the widows of Muhammad (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Other codices were soon put together by close companions of Muhammad and it is important to be familiar with the most wellknown. 1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud He was one of the earliest converts to Islam and it is recorded that when Muhammad mentioned the four greatest authorities of the Qur’an from whom it should be learned, he deliberately mentioned Abdullah first (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 96). It is well-known that he compiled his own manuscript of the Qur’an while at Kufa where it became the official text. He is recorded as saying that no one knew the book better than he did (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488). 2. Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa He was the second person Muhammad mentioned in the list of four authorities. Although he was killed at the Battle of Yamama not long after Muhammad’s death, it is reported that he was the first to collect the Qur’an into a mushaf – a manuscript or written codex (As Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 135). 3. Ubayy ibn Ka’b Also named among the four, Muhammad is said to have been commanded by Allah to hear him recite portions of the Qur’an. He was known as the sayid al-qurra (the master reciter) and also compiled his own text of the Qur’an which became the preferred text in Syria.

! 176

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Numerous other codices were transcribed at the same time. Of these the manuscripts of Ali, Ibn Abbas, Abu Musa, Anas ibn Malik and Ibn az-Zubair are well-documented.

Uthman’s Order to Destroy the Other Codices During the reign of Uthman, the third successor (caliph) to Muhammad, word came to him that the Muslims in the various provinces were differing considerably in their reading of the Qur’an. Uthman decided to unite the people on a mushaf wahid (single text) and, after calling for Zaid’s codex which was conveniently in Medina in Hafsah’s possession where the caliph had his seat of government, he ordered Zaid with three others to transcribe his manuscript into seven exact replica copies and to send one copy to each province with the order that all the other manuscripts of the Qur’an in existence be burnt (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479). The codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b were specially singled out and both were destroyed. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud at first strongly resisted the order. Zaid’s copy had never been standardized as an official text and it was used purely as a matter of convenience, being close at hand in Medina and not identified with any particular group of Muslims. Abdullah complained that he had directly obtained seventy surahs from Muhammad while Zaid was still a young child – why should he now forsake what he had acquired? (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 15). He also plainly stated that he preferred the Qur’anic recitation of Muhammad himself to that of Zaid, implying that he did not regard Zaid’s codex as completely authentic and adding that "the people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an" (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444). Although there is abundant evidence that Zaid’s codex was only one of a number of early manuscripts and had no grounds for being regarded as the best available, least of all a totally authentic copy, it became standardized by Uthman as the official text of the Qur’an and remains so to this day. Later in this chapter a comparison will be drawn of the hundreds of textual variant readings between all the early codices of the Qur’an and the few of the Bible. At this point, however, we need only consider the action of Uthman in consigning to the flames a number of handwritten manuscripts of the Qur’an compiled by some of the closest companions of Muhammad including two of the four he named as those who knew the Qur’an best and from whom it should be learned. The Bible has only been burnt by its enemies. Uthman burnt every other manuscript of the Qur’an other than the one he conveniently had at hand. Codices that had been widely recognized as authoritative texts in the various provinces were burnt in favor of a

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !177

manuscript that Hafsah had simply kept under her bed! This action contrasts most unfavorably with the evidences we have considered for the Biblical texts.

1.3 The Passages in Mark 16 and John 8 Muslim: There are two passages in the Gospels which appear in some of the ancient manuscripts but not in others. Some editions of the RSV Bible include them in the text while others omit them. Does this not prove conclusively the Bible has been changed? Despite the great length of the Bible (it is five times the length of the Qur’an) there are only two passages about which there can be any question of their authenticity. They fill less than a page of a book consisting of more than a thousand pages. Let us consider them.

Mark 16:9-20: The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus This passage describes a number of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus and his ascension to heaven. It does not appear in the very oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel but concludes the book in many of the Greek texts dating shortly after those manuscripts. Did someone interpolate Mark’s Gospel with this short passage? As no other case is known of the possible addition of any passage to the Christian scriptures making up the New Testament (other than John 8:1-11) it is highly unlikely that this section was fabricated some centuries after the book was originally written and that it gained acceptance somehow as part of the text. It is far more probable that it is authentic and was omitted from the earliest texts as a result of unknown circumstances. Each of the four Gospels has a conclusion. Without this passage Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly. It records an appearance to three women by an angel who tells them to go to Galilee where they would see Jesus. It is most unlikely that the Gospel would end here without further reference to what happened to him. Another issue is whether it teaches anything contrary to the rest of the New Testament. These points are relevant: 1. Jesus’ Appearance to Mary Magdalene Verses 9-11 record that he first appeared on the day of his resurrection to Mary Magdalene. The incident is reported in greater detail in John 20:11-18. 2. A Further Appearance to Two Followers

! 178

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Another brief reference follows outlining Jesus’ interaction with two of his disciples later the same day. This incident is likewise outlined in specific detail in Luke 24:13-35. 3. His Commission to his Eleven Disciples Following this is an appearance to his eleven remaining disciples (after the demise of Judas) where he met with them as they sat at table. A commission to preach the Gospel to the whole creation follows with certain statements about it. The incident, once again, has parallels in Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:36-43. 4. Jesus’ Ascension to Heaven The passage concludes with a brief statement that Jesus thereafter ascended to heaven while his disciples went out and preached his message everywhere. This likewise is confirmed in the first chapter of Acts. There is nothing in this passage which is not repeated elsewhere in the New Testament. What the Muslims need is to prove that the present teachings of the Christian Bible are not what was originally recorded and that the whole book has been changed from what was allegedly a scripture originally consistent with Islam. Arguments around this passage do not remotely canvass the real issue. Nothing here conflicts with the overall contents of the New Testament and, as has been seen, every incident recorded has parallels elsewhere in the book.

John 8:1-11: The Woman Caught in Adultery The only other passage about which there is any uncertainty in the New Testament is the story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery recorded in John 8:1-11. Some ancient manuscripts include it right here, others omit it completely while some others have added it as an appendix to Luke’s Gospel. There seems to have been a general consensus in early Christian times that it was genuine save that its exact location was disputed. There are, in fact, a number of reasons to conclude that it was originally part of John’s Gospel just where it stands today – at the beginning of the eighth chapter. 1. The Contrasting Ministry of Moses and Jesus Throughout this Gospel a contrast is drawn between the limited ministry of Moses and the fulfillment of all God’s purposes in Jesus Christ. "The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17) sums this principle up. For example, although Moses fed the people with bread for forty years, they still died. He who feeds on Jesus who is the bread of eternal life will, however, live forever (John

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !179

6:31-35). Likewise people could be circumcised on the sabbath simply to comply with the law of Moses – how much more could a man’s whole body be made well on the sabbath by Jesus. (John 7:23) So in this passage the law of Moses convicted the woman involved of adultery but, under the light of Jesus’ teaching and presence, all present left the scene convicted of sin (John 8:7-9). The woman, however, was left to experience the saving grace that Jesus brought (John 8:10-11). 2. Jesus’ Use of the Term "Woman" When all the Jewish leaders had departed from the scene Jesus addressed the adulterous woman "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" (John 8:10). This unusual use of the vocative "Woman" by Jesus as a personal mark of respect (like "Sir") appears again in John’s Gospel on a number of occasions (John 2:4, 4:21, 20:15) but does not appear in the other Gospels. 3. The Logical Sequence of Events The Pharisees, who are not mentioned in this Gospel until now, suddenly appear without introduction in discussion with Jesus in John 8:13. The introduction clearly appears in John 8:3. Likewise the heated debate between them and Jesus which follows in the rest of the chapter is obviously a consequence of the narrative recorded in John 8:1-11. Throughout his Gospel John records incidents in the life of Jesus which gave rise to discourses and debates with the Jewish leaders (cf. John 6:1-59) and without the story of the woman caught in adultery and subsequent interaction of Jesus with them this trend is uncharacteristically broken. 4. Jesus and Moses: Conviction of Sin In the debate with these leaders Jesus interjected "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (John 8:46). This statement would be somewhat isolated had the incident with the woman not occurred. It is here that Jesus boldly declares to them "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). One by one, in response to this challenge, they left the scene, beginning from the eldest, until Jesus was left alone with the woman before him. The thrust is clear – he had convicted them all of sin – which one of them could do the same to him in return? There is considerable, if not convincing, evidence that John 8:1-11 belongs just where it is found. In any event yet again there is nothing in the incident which conflicts with anything else taught in the New Testament. There is, therefore, no significant or relevant evidence anywhere to show that passages have been omitted from or added to the Bible which have changed its overall teaching from an originally Islamic basis to a Christian theme. Arguments around the two passages considered here do not begin to prove the

! 180

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Muslim case. As said already they fill less than half a page – hardly the kind of proof that the Bible as a whole has been changed. On the contrary we will proceed to show that there are far greater evidences for passages from the Qur’an that were said to have originally formed part of the text but have since been omitted. It will be seen yet again that the Qur’an’s original textual integrity is far more questionable than that of the Bible – even though the Bible is five times the length of the Qur’an and was compiled over a much longer period many centuries earlier.

1.4 Missing Passages from the Qur’an Muslim: The Qur’an is a complete book, just as it was originally revealed to our holy Prophet. Nothing has ever been added nor is anything missing from it. This also proves that it is the infallible Word of Allah. Contrary to popular Muslim belief there are numerous evidences to prove that the Qur’an is incomplete as it stands today. Abdullah ibn Umar had this to say in the very early days of Islam: Let none of you say "I have acquired the whole of the Qur’an". How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared? Rather let him say "I have acquired what has survived." (As-Suyuti, Al Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 524). There are many records of verses, passages and even whole sections that are said to have originally been part of the Qur’an which are no longer there. Some important examples follow.

Whole Surahs Missing from the Qur’an Abu Musa al-Ashari, a close companion of Muhammad and one of the earliest authorities of the Qur’an, is recorded as teaching the Qur’an-reciters (qurra) in Basra: We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 501)

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !181

The tradition is preserved in one of the two most recognised collections of the sayings of Muhammad. Next to the Sahih al-Bukhari the Sahih Muslim is regarded as the most authentic record of his life. Other companions, such as Anas ibn Malik and Ibn Abbas, also reported that Muhammad used to recite the verse quoted but were not certain whether it was from the Qur’an or not. Abu Musa also mentioned another surah which was recited in the early days of Islam by Muhammad’s companions: And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (61:2) and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (17:13). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 501) The Musabbihaat are a group of five surahs (57, 59, 61, 62 and 64) which begin with the words "Let everything praise (sabbahu or yusabbihu) Allah that is in the heavens and the earth". These records of at least two lost surahs are proof that the Qur’an is not perfect and complete as Muslims claim. When they raise arguments against the passages in Mark’s and John’s Gospels which we have considered, it will be useful to mention these in return.

Verses Missing from the Qur’an In addition to the verses mentioned in the two traditions from the Sahih Muslim, there are evidences of others missing today from the Qur’an. Some of these are the following: 1. The Religion of Allah is al-Hanifiyyah There is a tradition from the Jami as-Sahih of at-Tirmidhi that the following verse once formed part of Suratul-Bayyinah (Surah 98) of the Qur’an: The religion with Allah is al-Hanifiyyah (the Upright Way) rather than that of the Jews or the Christians, and those who do good will not go unrewarded. (As-Suyuti, Al Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 525). This passage could well have once belonged to the Surah as it fits well into its context and contains words found elsewhere in it, namely din (religion, v. 5), aml, (to do, v. 7) and hunafa (upright, v. 4). The Surah also contrasts the way of Allah with the Jews and Christians in other passages in the text and it is a good example of a verse now missing from the Qur’an.

! 182

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

2. Stoning of Adulterers to Death Umar ibn al-Khattab, one of the very closest companions of Muhammad and his second successor, taught plainly from the pulpit in Medina while he was Caliph that whereas Surah 24:2 teaches that adulterers should be lashed with a hundred stripes, a verse in the Qur’an originally stipulated that married men and women who commit adultery were to be stoned to death: See that you do not forget the verse about stoning and say: We do not find it in the Book of Allah; the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) had ordered stoning and we too have done so, after him. By the Lord Who holds possession of my life, if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book of Allah, I would have had this transcribed therein: "The adult men and women who commit adultery, stone them". We have read this verse. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 352) Various other sources confirm that this verse was originally part of the Qur’an but is now missing from it. One quotes Umar as saying that part of the scripture revealed to Muhammad was the ayatur-rajam(the Stoning Verse) and that they memorised, understood and recited it. He added that he feared people in time to come, on finding no mention of the verse in the Qur’an, would forget the ordinance (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 539). 3. Being the Offspring of Fathers Alone Another verse said by Umar to have been originally part of the kitabullah (the "Book of Allah", that is, the Qur’an) but which, by his time as caliph, had been lost from its text read as follows: O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father. (Sahih alBukhari, Vol. 8, p. 540) 4. The Good Pleasure of Allah Anas ibn Malik, another companion of Muhammad, taught that the following verse originally formed part of the Qur’an but was later abrogated and deleted from its text: Convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 288) It is also recorded that this text was "sent down in a Qur’an verse until it was withdrawn" (As-Suyuti, Al Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 527). It is yet another proof that the Qur’an has not been preserved free from any change, alteration or omission as

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !183

Muslims believe. Instead the evidences for missing passages from the Qur’an are, as we can see, far greater than those for the Bible. 5. Marriage Between People Fed by the same Mother Yet another tradition reported from Ayishah, one of Muhammad’s wives, states that there was once a passage in the Qur’an which taught that, if two people had been fed at the breast of the same mother at least ten times, they could not marry. Later, she said, it was reduced to five: A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings made the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (saw) died and it was before that time in the Holy Qur’an. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 740) These are only a selection of evidences that the Qur’an is an incomplete book. Christians should use these proofs with Muslims to show that their challenges about the textual integrity of the Bible can very easily – and far more effectively – be turned on the Qur’an. As the saying goes, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

1.5 Variant Readings in the New Testament Muslim: There are a number of examples in the Bible of verses that appear in some manuscripts and not in others. Other types of variant reading can also be found. How can your Bible be the true Word of God if its text cannot be completely verified? Muslims fondly believe that the Qur’an is a perfect book, that not a dot or letter has been altered or omitted, and that this miraculous state of preservation of the book proves it is the Word of God. At the same time any proof whatsoever is sought to show that the Bible has been changed and cannot therefore be regarded as reliable. We do not believe a book has to be perfectly intact to be the authentic Word of God but rather that, if it has been protected and handed down in its original form with only a few copyist errors, negligible variant readings and one or two uncertain passages, its overall integrity cannot be challenged. As we have seen and will again see in the next section, the Qur’an in any event has not been perfectly transcribed and in fact suffers from far more variant readings, lost passages and the like than the Bible.

The Few Variants in the New Testament

! 184

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

It is remarkable that the Biblical text as it has been preserved has no more than a few variant readings, about twenty in all, and that they all come from the New Testament. As Kenneth Cragg has pointed out, only a one-thousandth part of the book is affected. This is hardly the sort of proof the Muslims need to prove that the Bible, as a whole, has been so dramatically changed that it no longer contains what was originally written. What is more, none of the New Testament variants remotely affects the teaching of the book as a whole and some of them in any event have parallels in other Gospels where the text is virtually repeated. Let us consider some of these variant readings as typical examples. 1. Mark 15:28: A Quote from Isaiah 53:12 A verse, found in some of the ancient copies of Mark’s Gospel but not in others, reads: "And the scripture was fulfilled which says ‘He was reckoned with the transgressors’" (Mark 15:28). The passage referred to is from the great passage of Messianic suffering in Isaiah 53:12. It is repeated, however, in much the same form in the following quote which appears in every surviving copy of Luke’s Gospel: "For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with the transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfillment" (Luke 22:37). This passage from Mark’s Gospel, like all the others in the New Testament, in no way disturbs the overall text. A scratch on a Rolls-Royce may slightly impair its perfection, but it does not stop the car from being a Rolls-Royce or turn it into some other vehicle. 2. Matthew 21:44: Being Broken by a Falling Stone In the parable of the tenants in the vineyard recorded in Matthew’s Gospel the following saying of Jesus is found in a few of the most ancient manuscripts of the book but not in the rest: "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him" (Matthew 21:44). The text, however, is repeated almost word-for-word in Luke 20:18. Thus the variant has no affect on the text as a whole. The same applies to Matthew 23:14 which contains another saying of Jesus pronouncing a woe upon the Pharisees for devouring widow’s houses. It is only found in some of the earliest manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel but is again repeated in every manuscript of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 12:40). 3. Matthew 27:49: The Piercing of Jesus’ Side Once again in some manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel these words appear: "And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood" (Matthew

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !185

27:49). The statement is paralleled in John 19:34 where it appears in every manuscript of the Gospel. 4. 1 John 5:7: The Father, Word and Holy Ghost In this case we consider a verse which appears in none of the ancient Greek manuscripts, the original language of the New Testament scriptures, but which can be traced back to the Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate. From here it appears in much later Greek transcripts of the New Testament and, as the King James Version of the Bible (best defined as the King James English translation) was based on these texts, it found its way into the translation. The verse reads: "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). As the verse does not appear in any of the oldest texts of John’s First Epistle it is probable that it was a marginal note of a scribe, a complement to the rest of the verse which reads "There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree". Muslims have made great efforts to discredit the integrity of the Bible text with the disputed verse, claiming it is the only passage in the Bible which teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. Conveniently overlooked is an equally dogmatic trinitarian statement, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) as well as similar statements in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Ephesians 2:18. There are a number of cases in the New Testament, mainly in the four Gospels, where slight variant readings occur affecting single words, brief expressions or short clauses. Once again, none of them affects the teaching of the book as a whole or its overall authenticity. The variant readings in the Bible are so easily accounted for and of such little importance that they in no way affect the integrity of the book as a whole. The scriptures, in their entirety, have been preserved for us virtually unaltered, unlike the Qur’an where every manuscript transcribed by Muhammad’s own companions except one was cast into the flames to be destroyed.

1.6 Evidences of Qur’anic Variant Readings Muslim: There are no variant readings affecting the actual text of the Qur’an. In the early days the Qur’an was recited in different dialects which only affected the pronunciation of its verses. That is why the early manuscripts were burnt – to eliminate these differences of pronunciation alone.

! 186

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

This statement, which is self-evidently illogical, is typical of most Muslim explanations for the burning by Uthman of all but one of the codices compiled by Muhammad’s companions which contained a variety of variant readings. Pronunciations have nothing to do with written texts. You cannot burn differences of dialect in common speech! There must have been real textual differences between the various written manuscripts for such a drastic order to be given. During the time of Uthman the Qur’an was still best known in the memories of most of the Muslims and the burning order did not eliminate the knowledge of what the variant readings were. Over a period of time historians of the text of the Qur’an such as Ibn Abi Dawud who compiled a record of these variants which he titled Kitab al-Masahif (Book of the Manuscripts), and Muhammad Abu Jafar at-Tabari, author of the monumental work on the Qur’an titled Jami al-Bayan fii Tafsir al-Qur’an (A Comprehensive Compilation for a Commentary of the Qur’an), preserved a record of all the known variants between the various texts.

The Differences Between the Earliest Texts The evidences, especially from at-Tabari’s extensive records, show that there were literally hundreds of variant readings between the early manuscripts. Arthur Jeffery, who compiled a catalogue of the different readings mainly from Ibn Abi Dawud’s and atTabari’s works, listed them over no less than three hundred and sixty-two pages of his book Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. His book also contains the whole text of Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif. They make the number of Biblical variants seem negligible in comparison and, once again, it has to be remembered that the Bible is centuries older than the Qur’an, five times its length, and was compiled by numerous authors over a two-thousand year period. When Muslims argue that the Bible has been changed it will be very useful to mention some of the numerous variant readings known from these early writings. Some interesting examples are the following: 1. The Day of Resurrection Surah 2:275 begins with the words "Those who devour usury will not stand" (Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna). The reading of Ibn Mas’ud was the same except that he added the words yawmal qiyaamati – "on the Day of Resurrection". This variant is mentioned in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadhail al-Qur’an and was also recorded in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif. 2. Fasting for Three Successive Days

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !187

Surah 5:91 as it stands in the Qur’an today contains the exhortation "Fast for three days" (fasiyaamu thalaathatiu ayyaamin). Ibn Mas’ud’s text included the adjective mutataabi’aatin, meaning "fast for threesuccessive days". At-Tabari records the variant (7.19.11) as did Abu Ubaid. Ubayy ibn Ka’b also recorded it as did Ibn Abbas and ArRabi ibn Khuthaim. 3. The Path of Allah Surah 6:153 in the Qur’an begins "Verily this is my path" (wa anna haathaa siraati). Ibn Mas’ud, in place of this clause, read "This is the path of your Lord" (wa haathaa siraatu rabbakum). At-Tabari is once again the source of the variant (8.60.16). Ubayy ibn Ka’b, the other great expert of the Qur’an text and close companion of Muhammad, had the same reading except that he read rabbika for rabbakum. Other variants around this text have also been recorded. 4. The Mothers of the Believers Surah 33:6 says of Muhammad and all believing Muslims "his wives are their mothers" (azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu). At-Tabari once again records a major variant reading (21.70.8), namely that Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b included the words apparently now missing from the Qur’an text "and he is their father" (wa huwa abuu laahum). Ibn Abbas, Ikrima and Mujahid ibn Jabir also recorded it. The number of witnesses to its conclusion suggests that Zaid’s text (the current Qur’an) overlooked its inclusion. These are merely four of the vast collection of variant readings that exist. There are so many (well over two thousand in fact) that it is remarkable to behold the confidence with which Muslims attack the integrity of the Bible. Most of the time they have quite simply been kept in the dark about the manner in which the Qur’an was standardised from a wealth of variant readings into the text we have today.

Changes to the Qur’an made by Al-Hajjaj There is clear evidence in the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud that no less than eleven changes were made to individual words in the Qur’an by the scribe al-Hajjaj on the orders of his caliph, Abd al-Malik. His book contains a chapter headed Bab: Ma Ghaira al-Hajjaj fii Mushaf Uthman ("Chapter: What was Changed by Al-Hajjaj in the Uthmanic text"). His text begins:

! 188

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Altogether al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text. In al-Baqarah (Surah 2:259) it originally read Lam yatassana waandhur, but it was altered to Lam yatassanah. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 117) Some of the other changes to the Qur’an made at this time as recorded in this chapter were the following: 1. Shariy’ah was changed to shir’ah (law) in Surah 5:48; 2. Yuthasharukum was altered to yusayyirukum (travel) in Surah 10:22; 3. Ma’a’ishahum was changed to read ma’ishatahum (livelihood) in Surah 43:32; 4. Yasin was changed to Aasin (brackish) in Surah 47:15. In each of these cases, as in the other seven recorded, the variant reading is generally only of a letter or two, but it once again is not confined to pronunciation but reflects an actual change in the consonantal text, thus undermining the Muslim claim that not even one letter in the Qur’an has ever been altered. The word Ibn Abi Dawud always uses in between each alternative is faghyirah meaning "changed, altered, replaced by, or varied" – words Muslims would not like to find used at such an early date to explain alterations in the Qur’an!

Dialects and the Text of the Qur’an It is very important to know that there were no vowel points in the earliest Qur’an manuscripts. Written Arabic has no vowels and it took centuries before vowel points were added to the Qur’an. The oldest Qur’an texts surviving to this day date not earlier than at least a hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death and are written in the al-ma’il script of Medina. Most other ancient Qur’an scripts surviving are in kufic script, a bold form of writing which first came from Kufa in Iraq. Claims are made to this day that original Uthmanic manuscripts survive, even with his bloodstains on a page he was reading when he was assassinated. One such manuscript is in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul and another is the famous Samarqand Codex of Tashkent. Both were written in kufic script and date at least a century after Uthman’s time. As stated already, the favorite Muslim argument used to sustain the hypothesis that the Qur’an text today is an exact replica of the original is that the only variant readings which existed in the early years were in dialectal pronunciation. The evidences prove conclusively otherwise. Such differences would not have appeared in the written text and, in fact, countless different forms of reading survived for at least three centuries until Ibn Mujahid, a well-known authority on the Qur’an at the Abbasid court in

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !189

Baghdad, ordered that only seven be authorized in terms of a tradition from Muhammad himself that the Qur’an had been revealed in "seven different ways" and that each Muslim could choose whichever was easiest for him to read (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 510). All the variant readings recorded in at-Tabari’s Jami and Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab alMasahif as well as other similar records are of substantial differences in the actual written text, its words and expressions, its consonants and clauses. There were so many that Uthman simply had no alternative but to order the destruction of all but one which was conveniently standardised as the only official text of the Qur’an. This sequence of events in the early days makes the history of the Qur’an text appear decidedly unfavourable when compared with the text of the Bible.

Biblical Contents and Teaching

1.7 Apparent Errors in Biblical Numerics Muslim: There are occasions in the Bible where obvious contradictions appear between parallel passages where the figures given are not the same. These discrepancies and factual errors prove the Bible is unreliable and cannot be the Word of God. Muslim writers often fasten on to a few parallel passages in the Old Testament where there certainly are apparent contradictions between the numbers and ages given in narratives of specific events. It is not only important to know them but also to be aware, once again, of precisely the same phenomenon in the Qur’an!

Copyist Errors in the Old Testament There are four examples from the whole text of the book which we will consider as typical of the problem. In each case, although Muslims claim that they are evidences of wholesale contradictions which must be the errors of the original authors, it will be obvious that the problem arises solely from copyist errors made during transmission of the text. 1. The Reigns of Jehoiachin and Ahaziah, Kings of Judah In one passage the Bible states that "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king" (2 Kings 24:8) while in another it says "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he

! 190

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

began to reign" (2 Chronicles 36:9). All that has happened here is that the single Jewish letter for "ten" was omitted during copying of the text of 2 Chronicles by a Jewish scribe over two thousand years ago. A similar distinction occurs here between one passage which states that "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign" (2 Kings 8:26) and another which records "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign" (2 Chronicles 22:2). Apart from this discrepancy the texts agree that he reigned only one year and that his mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri. Once again, in the original Hebrew, the difference between the two ages is represented in only one letter. Again the error would have occurred solely in the copying of the text. It is obvious that the second age is incorrect for, if Ahaziah had been forty-two years old when his reign began he would have been two years older than his father! 2. David’s Charioteers and Solomon’s Stalls In one passage in the Old Testament it says that "David slew of the Syrians the men of seven hundred chariots" (2 Samuel 10:18) while in another it is recorded that "David slew of the Syrians the men ofseven thousand chariots" (1 Chronicles 19:18). There are marked resemblances between Jewish numerical letters and here, as in the other examples quoted, the difference in the original text affects but one letter which is very similar in each book. We have but another case of an obvious copyist error which in no way affects the text of the Bible or its teaching in any significant way. The same applies to a verse which states that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses (1 Kings 4:26) in comparison with another which states that the number was four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25). In all these cases and others Muslims might quote the issue is often a fractional difference in the transcribing of a letter in the original Hebrew text. This sort of hair-splitting argument does not begin to deal with the key issue which is the integrity of the Bible as a whole, especially its Christian (rather than Islamic) content and emphasis.

Contradictions in Qur’anic Numerics There are more obvious discrepancies in certain similar numerical excerpts from the Qur’an. Here we do not find the problem confined to single, very similar letters but rather to whole words which create obvious contradictions. Two examples should be learned by Christians and quoted whenever Muslims attack the numerical differences we have mentioned. 1. The Length of the Day of Judgment

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !191

According to one text the Great Day of God will be "a thousand years of your reckoning" (Surah 32:5) while in another it is said that the measure of the same Day will be "as fifty thousand years" (Surah 70:4). In this case the distinction is far more obvious for it is not confined to one letter but a whole word, namely khamsiina ("fifty") which appears in the second text in addition to the words alfa sanatin ("A thousand years"). Muslims hide in the clouds by explaining the contradiction away as an example of "mystical", "cosmic" or "allegorical" language. But, as the first text states clearly that the length of the Day will be a thousand years "of your reckoning" (meaning precisely as we would measure it on earth), there is a very real contradiction between the two texts that cannot easily be explained. How can one thousand and fifty thousand revolutions of the earth around the sun be exactly the same? 2. The Original Creation of the Heavens and the Earth. In one Qur’anic passage it is said that the heavens, the earth, and all that is between them were created in six days (Surah 50:38) while another teaches that the earth was made in two days, the heavens likewise in two, and the earth’s sustenance between them in four days (Surah 41:9-12), making eight days in all in anyone’s simple mathematics. Once again it is hard to reconcile the two texts with the contradiction being found not in solitary letters but in a whole calculation of different time periods. One of the problems Christians experience in witness with Muslims is the tendency of the latter to set unreasonable standards for the authenticity of the Bible which they somehow cannot see can be applied with greater forcefulness against the Qur’an. They begin with the premise that to be the Word of God a book cannot have numerical errors, variant readings and the like. Fondly believing the Qur’an is free from such defects they freely launch into attacks on the integrity of the Biblical text. Christians need to know the evidences that show that the textual integrity of the Qur’an can be challenged on precisely the same grounds as the Muslims live under the fond illusion (and are taught by theirmaulanas and leaders from childhood) that the Qur’an is a perfect book without contradictions, different readings and the like. The aim must be not to win an argument or discredit the Qur’an but simply to counter false and unjustifiable attacks on the Bible.

1.8 The Authorship of Matthew’s Gospel Muslim: Matthew was not the author of the Gospel attributed to him. There are proofs that it was written long after his time by another author whose identity is unknown.

! 192

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

At time it seems Muslims will use any argument they can to discredit the Bible. More than once I have heard Muslims challenge the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel. The argument is usually centered on the following text from the Gospel itself: As Jesus passed on from there he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, "Follow me". And he rose and followed him. Matthew 9:9 Although the earliest Christian sources all attribute this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, Muslims argue that he cannot have written it because he describes his own conversion in the third person in this verse. More than one Muslim author has claimed that a firstperson account of the incident should have been given if Matthew himself was the author of the Gospel attributed to him. One can only marvel at times at the manner in which Muslims set themselves up as judges of the Biblical text and prescribe what should have been done. When approaching any book like the Bible or the Qur’an, a far better approach is to let the book speak for itself and to apply a scholarly approach to its contents. Too often the aim is purely to find fault by whatever means possible. In response to a Muslim who once challenged me on this very issue during a personal conversation I replied "Who is the author of the Qur’an?" He immediately answered "Allah" to which I responded "How is it, then, that Allah likewise constantly refers to himself in the third person in the book?" I used the following verse as an example: He is Allah and there is no god besides who He is. Surah 59:22 The Arabic begins Huwallaah ("He is Allah") and finishes with the same pronoun it begins with, huwa ("he is"). In both cases the pronoun used is the third person singular. Allah, too, is mentioned by name just as he is nearly three thousand other times in the book. If Matthew cannot be the author of his Gospel because he both names and speaks of himself in the third person in the book, then Allah – by the same Muslim reasoning – cannot be the author of the Qur’an. There is quite simply no difference between these two uses of the third person in the Bible and the Qur’an. Christians often justifiably become frustrated at the manner in which Muslims try to discredit the Bible. Often their arguments are extremely weak and can be turned equally effectively against the Qur’an. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are trying to prove a case by whatever means they can and that they base their arguments on convenient presuppositions rather than solid evidences. Christianity stands on its own and its historical records of the life of Jesus as found in the Gospels. It does not need to disprove a religion which only came six hundred years later. Islam, on the other hand, because it acknowledges Jesus but has no alternative historical records of his life, has to

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !193

disprove Christianity to establish itself. This is why the Qur’an itself constantly argues against Christian beliefs and practices and is also why Muslims try so hard to discredit the Bible. As long as Christians remember this they will be patient in dealing with argumentative Muslims, especially when they tend to resort to any means they can to attempt to prove their point.

Other Arguments Against Matthew’s Gospel Very often Muslims acquire arguments against the integrity of the Bible from the writings of modern liberal Western scholars basing their conclusions on what has become known as "higher criticism" of the Biblical text. Almost invariably this source is highly questionable as such authors do not simply assess the evidences but work on all manner of assumptions. A typical example is the hypothesis in many such works that behind the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) there was an original source of traditions about the life of Jesus. It is presumed that it had been compiled in a written collation of teachings and events derived from the disciples of Jesus some time earlier than the writing of the four Gospels and has been called "Q" purely because no proper name or source can be applied to such a text conveniently assumed to have existed. It is then concluded, perforce, that Matthew could not have been the author of the Gospel attributed to him. There are three very good reasons to challenge not only this conclusion but the very means used by such scholars to prefer their own subjective reasonings to factual evidences to the contrary. 1. The Evidences of Early Christian Writings All the earliest Christian sources, as stated already, attribute this Gospel to Matthew. The subjective reasonings of modern scholars who prize twentieth-century speculations over factual, contemporary evidences, cannot be preferred to the testimonies of those who lived at the time when this Gospel was first copied and distributed. These same scholars challenge the original story of creation, write off the flood of Noah as a myth, scoff at the sojourn of Jonah in a fish for three days, and reject the virgin-birth of Jesus for the same reason – pure speculation, this time on rational grounds. Muslim scholars, who know that the Qur’an confirms all these events, cannot honestly rely on sources that also discredit Islam for the same reasons. 2. No Alternative Authorship for Matthew’s Gospel J.B, Phillips, in his introduction to this Gospel, while confirming that some modern scholars reject the traditional sources for the authorship of this Gospel, states that he can

! 194

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

still conveniently be called Matthew. This is because there is quite frankly no reasonable alternative to his authorship, nor has the history of the early Church ever suggested another possible author. 3. The Supposed Oral Traditions behind this Gospel Phillips also states, without any proofs, that the author has plainly drawn on the "mysterious Q" for much of the material in his Gospel. There is no evidence anywhere in early Christian history that such a body of oral traditions was ever collected into a written collection. Its identity is not so much a mystery as a historical myth. The very title "Q" testifies to the whole speculative nature of this supposed source behind the Synoptic Gospels. At this point we are dealing no longer with actual evidences but with pure speculation. These modern scholars generally do not take the textual evidences for the Bible as they stand but rely on nothing more than their own convenient assumptions. Christians, in discussion with Muslims, must encourage them to stick to the facts and avoid resorting to conjectures which cannot possibly be proved.

1.9 The Variety of English Translations Muslim: Why are their so many different versions of the Bible? There are the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version amongst others. Fortunately we have only one Qur’an which has never been revised. This argument is only common in English-speaking countries, usually those where Muslims are in the minority. When Muslims hear of all these different English translations of the Bible, especially when they are titled "Versions", they immediately assume each one is a changed edition from a previous one – obvious proof that the Bible is still being changed by Christian priests and leaders to suit themselves.

English Translations: No Revision of the Bible Itself For some reason Muslims who raise the kind of argument which is presented here cannot see its immediate irrelevance. They compare what are no more than English translations of the Bible to the Arabic original of the Qur’an. With patience Christians need to point out that all our translations are based on the oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts we have for the Old and New Testaments respectively. These have never been altered or replaced and each "Version" is no more than a particular translation into another language. There have been numerous translations of the Qur’an into English as

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !195

well over recent decades but no one suggests these are different "versions" of the book. Each one has its own character. During a debate with Yusuf Buckas, a local Muslim propagandist, in Durban, South Africa, in 1985 on the integrity of the Bible he quoted from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as follows: "Yet the King James Version has grave defects ... these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision" and there he stopped, saying "unquote" as he concluded. He used this as an argument to prove that the Bible has been undergoing various changes to remedy its many defects. In reply I had to point out that his "unquote" was no unquote at all and that he had not finished the sentence which reads "to call for revision of the English translation" (my emphasis). A few minutes had to be used to show the Muslims present that the Bible was not being revised but only an English translation and that the purpose was not to corrupt the original text but rather to get as close to it as the translators possibly could.

Certain Differences in Translation Muslims do, however, endeavour to make something of certain differences between the King James Version and Revised Standard Version. Two passages will be mentioned and dealt with as typical of the type of arguments Christians can expect to hear with indications of how to respond to them. 1. Isaiah 7:14: Young Woman or Virgin? In the King James Version this verse states that a virgin would conceive and bear a son whereas the same text in the Revised Standard Version states that a young woman would do so. These are merely differences in translations of the original Hebrew word almah but Muslims have endeavoured to use the different choice of words as a proof of a change in the Bible. The argument goes that the Bible originally taught that Jesus would be born of a virginwoman but that a later edition has revised the text, eliminating a fundamental truth supported by the Qur’an (Surah 3:47, 19:20-21). The Christian response to this argument is quite simple. Firstly the original Hebrew word in the original text is almah and that it has never been changed. Therefore the issue is purely one of translation. Secondly, the word literally translated means a young woman and the Revised Standard Version’s translation is perfectly accurate. The normal Hebrew word for "virgin" is bethulah. On the other hand, from the context of the passage it is quite obvious that the conception by a young woman would be unique and a dramatic sign to the people of Israel and the King James Version quite fairly interprets this to mean what

! 196

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

is obviously intended, namely that a virgin would conceive. The Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, dating nearly two thousand years before the King James Version, also translated it "virgin" and either term is quite acceptable. There is, therefore, no question of a "change" to the Bible at this point. 2. John 3:16: God’s Only Begotten Son A similar argument centres on the translation of this verse in the same two Versions. In the former, the King James Version which dates back to 1611 AD, the verse states that God so loved the world that he sent his only-begotten Son that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. In the Revised Standard Version, dating from 1952, the verse simply says that God would send his only Son, leaving out the word "begotten". Muslims argue that the Bible has been changed to remove the objectionable idea that God has "begotten" a Son, a concept very forcefully rejected in the Qur’an which states: Say he is Allah the One, Allah the Eternal One. He does not beget, nor is he begotten, and like unto him there is not one. Surah 112:1-4 Once again the Muslims are making capital of absolutely nothing. The Greek word in the original text is monogenae which means "the one" (mono) "coming from" (genae) the Father. It is quite correct to translate this as "only" or "only begotten". Both expressions mean the same thing – the only son coming from the Father. The word begotten is an old English word freely used in the seventeenth century when the King James Version was written but one which is not part of twentieth-century spoken English. This is why the Revised Standard Version omits it. Yet again there is no question of a "change" in the original text – the issue is purely one of interpretation in English translations. Over the years I have heard an assortment of arguments against the Bible which have taxed my patience with Muslims. "Why are there four Bibles in your New Testament?" is one, another being "Why do your Popes change the Bible every year? It is not only the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope of the Baptist Church does the same". Another classic: "According to the Qur’an only one Injil, the "Gospel", was revealed to Jesus. But in your Bible there are many Gospels. Matthew wrote a Gospel, so did Mark, Luke, John and Acts. Romans wrote a Gospel and Corinthians wrote two"! While you may wish to focus purely on the actual Gospel itself and the effect of God’s love as revealed in Jesus Christ it is important to answer Muslim arguments against the Bible, even when they are poor and irrelevant to the real issues between us. It is my personal experience that a positive, effective answer to each point patiently argued can

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !197

go a long way to convincing the Muslim that the message you really want to present needs to be seriously considered.

1.10 The Genealogy of Jesus in the Gospels Muslim: The genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels give very different lines of descent. How do you explain this contradiction? Also, some of the women mentioned among his ancestors were very great sinners – how could the perfectly pure Son of God have been descended from such an impure ancestry? Very often Muslim arguments against the Bible reveal little more than a serious lack of awareness of what Christianity is really all about. In answering these two objections Christians not only have an opportunity to clarify misunderstandings but also to witness to the Muslims who raise them of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It needs to be emphasized again and again that every Muslim argument against the Bible should be seen as an open door to witness to its essential message.

The Two Different Genealogies The Hebrew line of Jesus’ descent is recorded in both Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke 3:23-38. There is no difference between these two records from Abraham to David but thereafter they diverge considerably. Matthew traces the line of Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon while Luke takes it through his son Nathan. From there on the two accounts are very different. Muslim writers have summarily concluded that they are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. The following points should be raised in reply whenever Muslims raise this issue: 1. Every Child has Two Genealogies It is hardly necessary to say that every man on earth has two lines of ancestry, one through his father and another through his mother. The one obvious thing about the two genealogies in the Gospels is that each is traced to a common source, David, and from there consistently to Abraham. What the two lines reveal, upon a close study of their context in each respective Gospel, is that Joseph, the legal guardian and registered father of Jesus (although not his natural father) was descended from David through Solomon while his mother Mary was descended from the same ancestor through Nathan. Thus there is no contradiction between them. 2. Matthew and Luke Clearly State their Lines of Descent

! 198

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

It is not a convenient assumption that these two Gospel writers are recording the paternal and maternal sequences of Jesus’ ancestry respectively. Matthew makes it plain that he is recording the line of Joseph (Matthew 1:16) and throughout the first two chapters of his Gospel we find Joseph to be the central character. Each appearance of the Angel Gabriel recorded here is to Joseph. In Luke’s Gospel, however, Mary is always the central personality and only the appearance of Gabriel to her is mentioned. 3. Luke Deliberately Qualifies his Genealogy Luke himself states specifically that Jesus was the son, "as was supposed", of Joseph (Luke 3:23) and it is in this little expression that the key to Jesus’ genealogy in his Gospel is found. Unlike Matthew he mentions no women in Jesus’ ancestry and, to maintain the general practice of outlining the masculine order only, Luke records Joseph as the supposed father of Jesus. He very carefully qualified Joseph’s role so that it would be clear that he was not recording the genealogy of Jesus through his representative father but rather his actual genealogy through his real mother Mary.

The Four Women Named in Matthew’s Genealogy Muslim writers have often tried to discredit the absolute purity of Jesus as the Son of God by referring to the four women Matthew names in his record of Jesus’ ancestry. They are Tamar, who committed incest with her father Judah from which Perez was born as a forefather of Jesus; Rahab, the prostitute and Gentile woman who helped Joshua and the Israelites at the conquest of Jericho; Ruth, the wife of Boaz who was also a Gentile; and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah who committed adultery with David and from whom Solomon was born. It is obvious that Matthew has deliberately named the very four women who disturbed the genealogy of Jesus by having moral or ethnic defects. He, clearly, did not think he was undermining the dignity of Jesus in doing so. Had there been any stigma attaching to such an ancestry he would assuredly have named some of more famous Hebrew women from whom Jesus was descended like Sarah and Rebecca. Why, therefore, did he specifically name the four women who supposedly unsettled the "purity" of his ancestry? The Apostle gives the answer himself. He records that, when the Angel Gabriel came to Joseph, he said of the child to be born: You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:21 It was precisely for people such as incestuous Tamar, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Gentile and Bathsheba the adulteress that Jesus came into the world. He descended from the holy portals of heaven and took human form in a sinful and decaying world so that he

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !199

could save his people from their iniquities and make his salvation available to all men and women, Jew and Gentile alike. In another passage recorded in the same Gospel we find Jesus making his purpose very clear: Those who are well have no need of a physician but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice". For I came not to call the righteous but sinners. Matthew 9:12-13 Jesus did not come to set an upright example for pious, religious people to follow. He came, primarily, to save all who turn to him from their sins and to make it possible for them to receive the Holy Spirit so that they might have power to live genuinely holy lives. Here it is obvious how effectively an argument against the Bible can be turned into a very good opportunity for witness. Whenever a Muslim challenges the Bible on a point such as this it is essential that we look not only for ways of refuting the objection but also for openings to share what our faith is really all about.

1.11 Biblical "Pornography" and Obscenities Muslim: How can a book which is supposed to be God’s Holy Word have stories about Judah’s incest, David’s adultery, Hosea’s marriage to a prostitute as well as passages where God speaks in terms that are clearly obscene and pornographic? This line of argument has become increasingly common in recent times. It derives from a Muslim assumption that all the prophets were sinless and that God would never use blunt language to describe the infidelity of his people or, to put it another way, to "call a spade a spade". Let us begin with the first part of the argument.

The Supposed Sinlessness of the Prophets The Bible records many stories of moral failure on the part of the prophets and patriarchs of ancient times. Judah committed incest with his daughter Tamar (Genesis 38:12-26) just as Lot had done with both of his daughters some time before (Genesis 19:30-38). David committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11:2-5) and subsequently arranged to have her husband deliberately killed in the forefront of battle (2 Samuel 11:14-21). Other prophets sinned in different ways – Moses murdered an Egyptian, Jacob lied to his father Isaac, and Solomon took wives and concubines from the Egyptians and other Gentile nations. Muslims recoil at such stories as they have been taught that all the prophets, from Adam to Muhammad, were sinless. This teaching, known as the doctrine of isma("sinlessness"), is not founded on the

! 200

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Qur’an but is derived from orthodox Muslim creeds such as the Fiqh Akbar II of later centuries. It was established to counter the Christian teaching that Jesus alone was without sin. When Muslims raise this argument Christians need to point out that the Qur’an teaches that the prophets also committed sins. Many of them in the Qur’an are recorded as praying for the forgiveness of their sins or were commanded to do so. For example: 1. Abraham. He said of God, the Rabb al-’Alamin ("Lord of the Worlds") that he was the one "who, I hope, will forgive me my sins on the Day of Judgment" (Surah 26:81). Muslim writers try to dilute statements like these, saying he was only praying for protection from mistakes and faults, but the words used here are yaghfira, which is the standard Arabic word for "to forgive", and khati’ati, a strong word plainly meaning "sins" and never mistakes or minor errors. It is so used in another passage which states that the people of Noah’s time were drowned "because of their sins" (Surah 71:25). 2. Moses. The Qur’an confirms that Moses killed one of his enemies but immediately thereafter prayed "O my Lord! I have wronged my soul, so forgive me!" (Surah 28:15-16). Allah duly did so because he is Al-Ghafur, the "Forgiving One". 3. David. The story of his adultery is not repeated in the Qur’an but the challenge of Nathan to him afterwards (2 Samuel 12:1-15) is in a somewhat varied form. The parable of the man with many flocks and herds who deprived a poor man of his one ewe lamb, used by Nathan to expose David’s wickedness in taking Uriah’s only wife from him while he had many wives of his own, is repeated in a short passage in the Qur’an (Surah 38:21-25). It concludes with a statement that David "asked forgiveness" (fastaghfara) and that Allah duly forgave him (faghafar), the standard word for forgiveness of sin again being used. Muslim writers use all manner of arguments to avoid the implications of such passages, denying that the parable relates to David’s adultery, but not being able to provide an alternative explanation for it (as the Qur’an does not place it in a context as the Bible does). Very significantly, however, Allah then commands David not to "follow your own lust" as others do who will face a grievous punishment (Surah 38:26) on the Day of Reckoning (Yawma’l-Hisab). 4. Muhammad. The Prophet of Islam himself is ordered to "ask forgiveness of your sins" as well as for those of all believing men and women (Surah 47:19), the words used here being wastaghfir lithanbikwhich are exactly the same words used when Zulaykah (the Muslim name for Potiphar’s wife) is commanded to repent of her desire to seduce Joseph (Surah 12:29).

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !201

The Bible quite simply does not gloss over the faults of the prophets and its fundamental opinion of all men is that none of them is righteous, that all have gone astray, have sinned against God and turned aside to their own ways (Romans 3:9-18). For this reason Jesus Christ came into the world, the only sinless man who ever lived, so that all might be saved. Once again there is an obvious opportunity here for witness and it is important to point out to Muslims that the Qur’an is much closer to the Bible than they are when it freely concedes the sins of the prophets.

Alleged Pornographic Passages in the Bible The second part of the argument presented here is based on passages like the following which certain Muslim writers claim contains obscene and pornographic language: She did not give up her harlotry which she had practiced since her days in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their lust upon her. Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians upon whom she doted. These uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters; and her they slew with the sword; and she became a byword among women, when judgment had been executed upon her. Ezekiel 23:8-10 The whole chapter is cited as an example of impure language which, it is claimed, is unbecoming of a holy God to use. Another typical passage to which exception is taken is the following: Plead with your mother, plead – for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband – that she put away her harlotry from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts; lest I strip her naked and make her as in the day she was born. Hosea 2:2-3 Both of these passages are illustrative of the extreme anger of God at the unfaithfulness of his people, Israel, towards him. This is why he told Hosea to take a prostitute as his wife because it would symbolize how God felt about his own people. They were constantly turning away from him to false gods and idols and adopted the lewd practices of the nations around them instead of submitting to his holiness. The language God uses in these passages is designed to shock his people into an awareness and consciousness of how defiled they are in his sight. Their behavior toward him is like that of an adulterous wife who freely gives herself up to other lovers. It required strong, emphatic language to make them realize the ugliness of their foolish ways. On the Day of Judgment God will declare all filthy practices to be precisely what they are – sodomy, sexual perversion, prostitution, lewdness and the like. He will not use nice terms to describe immoral behavior as some Muslims seem to think he should

! 202

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

if he is to be God. He has seen all the perverse passions of the human race and nothing shocks him. He will deal with them for what they are. Muslims must be encouraged to let God be who he is and to speak as he wishes. No one on earth can prescribe to him how he should describe unfaithfulness and infidelity. When a Muslim tells you that such language in the Bible encourages young people to think impure thoughts and creates all sorts of lustful desires you need only to quote the following verse in reply to them: To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15 Such impurity is only in the mind of the reader, not in the scripture. It is amazing to hear the Bible – a book which has turned millions away from perverse practices – described as pornographic or obscene. It is Christians, people who believe in the book, who have always been at the forefront of campaigns to ban real pornographic literature. Once again you have here an opportunity to make an impact on Muslims. When they raise such passages ask them if they have read the whole Bible through from cover to cover. Encourage them to do so – and to desist from paying attention only to passages which have to be wrenched totally out of context to be made to appear "obscene" or "pornographic".

The Qur’an in Relation to the Bible

1.12 The Jewish and Christian Scriptures Muslim: The Qur’an itself confirms that the Bible has been changed. The Old and New Testaments are not the books that were revealed originally to Moses and Jesus. Where are those books today? What you have in your hands is no longer the Word of God. Throughout the world Muslims are taught that the Qur’an accuses the Jews and Christians of having tampered with their scriptures. The charge that the Bible has been changed is one of the greatest falsehoods ever proclaimed in the cause of truth as we have seen already. Yet what is most interesting is to find that the Qur’an, in contrast with the general Muslim attitude, actually speaks very highly of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and positively confirms their authenticity.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !203

The Tawraat: The Jewish Scripture The common title for the whole Jewish scripture in the Qur’an is at-Tawraat, "the Law". It is said to be specifically the kitab (book) which was given to Moses (Surah 11:110). Its integrity and existence in the hands of the Jews at the time of Muhammad is confirmed in this verse: How will they make you their judge seeing they have the Tawraat, wherein is Allah’s judgment, then afterwards turn their backs. Surah 5:46 This passage quite plainly teaches that the Jews (specifically named as the people being referred to in Surah 5:44) actually have the Tawraat. The words used in the original Arabic text confirm this. The book is said to be inda hum – "with them". It is quite clear that the Qur’an, in this verse, teaches that the book was in their possession at the time of Muhammad. As the verse speaks of Jews who were actually coming to him for judicial decisions it is obvious that it speaks of Jews who were in the environment of Medina. The passage goes on to describe the Tawraat as a "guidance and light" which the former prophets used to apply the law of God to the Jews, their rabbis and judges (Surah 5:47). Further appeals are made to judge by what has been revealed therein. Throughout their history the Jews of the world have known only one scripture – the books of the Old Testament as we know them today. We have already seen that as far back as the second century before Christ (eight centuries before Muhammad’s time) the Hebrew Old Testament had already been translated into Greek in what is known as the Septuagint. The New Testament scriptures quote from the Old Testament books at length and our earliest extant manuscripts also date centuries before Islam. There can be no doubt, then, that the scripture to which the Qur’an refers can only be the Old Testament. The Qur’an always speaks of the former scriptures with great reverence. It would hardly exhort the Jews to judge by them if they were corrupted and unreliable. Significantly it uses the very word, Tawraat (Torah), which the Jews themselves use to describe the first five books of Moses in the Bible.

The Injil: The Christian Scripture The Qur’an once again, when describing the Christian scripture, uses a word with which Christians are very familiar. It calls it al-Injil, "the Gospel", and says it was revealed to Jesus:

! 204

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

And following them we sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming what came before him in the Tawraat, and we gave him the Injil in which are guidance and light and confirming what came before him in the Tawraat. Surah 5:49 From this text and other similar passages (Surah 3:3) it is clear that the Qur’an regards the Tawraat and Injil as the sum total of the Jewish and Christian scriptures respectively. Once again we find the Qur’an confirming the existence of the second scripture in the hands of the Christians at Muhammad’s time: Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein. Surah 5:50 If the book was not intact in their hands, how could the Qur’an exhort the Christians to make their judgments by its guidance and light? It is significant that this text calls the Christians ahlul-Injil, the "People of the Gospel" – a further confirmation of the existence of the book in their hands at the time of Muhammad. Yet, as with the Jews, the Christians have known only one scripture throughout their history – the books of the New Testament as we know it today. In another passage the Qur’an again confirms that the two scriptures were in the possession of the Jews and Christians during Muhammad’s days: Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, will find him mentioned in the Tawraat and Injil with them. Surah 7:157 Again the Qur’an states that these scriptures are inda hum, Arabic words meaning very specifically "with them". It is obvious that Muhammad never doubted the integrity of the books which the Jews and Christians of his day regarded as their holy scripture. He had no reservations about confirming their integrity. Another passage from the Qur’an emphasizes this fact very clearly: Say, O People of the Scripture. You have no ground to stand on unless you stand fast by the Tawraat and the Injil and what has been sent down to you from your Lord. Surah 5:71 How could they stand fast by these scriptures if, firstly, they did not possess them and, secondly, if they were not completely authentic? It is undeniable that the Qur’an teaches that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were intact at the time of Muhammad. In another verse Muhammad is encouraged, if he was in doubt about anything revealed to him, to consult those who had been reading the scriptures before him, namely the Jews and Christians. (Surah 10:94) It is important, in discussion with Muslims, to know these Qur’anic passages which witness to the integrity of the Bible. The Qur’an testifies quite unequivocally to its

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !205

authority as the revealed Word of God whether Muslims like it or not. In the light of the reverence and respect which their book shows for ours we should not hesitate to challenge Muslims to show the same esteem towards it and to read it for their own hudan and nur – "guidance and light".

1.13 Tahrif – The Allegations of Corruption Muslim: There are a number of passages in the Qur’an which clearly teach that the former scriptures have been changed and corrupted. How can you say that the Qur’an testifies to the integrity of the Christian Bible? There are a number of passages in the Qur’an which, at first sight, do appear to teach that some misrepresentation of the former scriptures did indeed take place. On investigation, however, it is obvious that each one deals with instances where the Ahl alKitab (the "People of the Book", viz. Jews and Christians) are accused of misinterpreting the teachings of their holy books. None of these passages ever suggests that the texts of the Tawraat or the Injil themselves ever became corrupted. Let us begin with texts specifically aimed at the spoken word.

A Twist of Their Tongues A number of texts invariably quoted by Muslims to prove that the Bible has been changed according to the Qur’an are, on close inspection, found to deal solely with verbal misquotes of the sacred texts and never of the written word itself. A typical example is this verse: From among the Jews there are those who displace words from their places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not heard"; and ra’ina; with a twist of their tongues and an insult to religion. Surah 4:46 This passage is alleged by Muslims to teach that the Jews have removed parts of the original text of their scripture and replaced it with other passages of their own invention. The following points prove otherwise: 1. The Twists were purely Verbal The charge in this verse is solely one of verbally changing the true meaning of words. "They twist with their tongues", the text says. There is no allegation of tampering with or changing the actual written text. A similar charge against the Jews of "changing words

! 206

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

from their places" appears again in Surah 5:44 where, as in Surah 4:46, actual quotations of sayings of the Jews are mentioned to show how they did this. 2. The Charge is Against Discourses of Jews of Muhammad’s Time The word ra’ina in Surah 4:46 is an Arabic word meaning "Please attend to us" but, with a subtle twist, can be turned into an insult. As the original Jewish scriptures were in Hebrew it is obvious that the Qur’an is referring to Jews of Muhammad’s own time who conversed with Arabs in Arabic. Once again it is obvious it is the conversation of Jews, where they subtly played on words, that is the issue here, not an alteration of their actual scriptures.

A Verbal Misrepresentation Another typical verse which has been raised as a supposed proof that Jews and Christians have changed their original scriptures is this one: Do you hope that they will believe you while a party of them heard the word of God and consciously perverted it after they had understood it? Surah 2:75 Here again there are a number of points that show that this verse is concerned only with verbal misrepresentation and not with an actual change in the text of the early scriptures. 1. The Opinion of Great Muslim Scholars Both the great early Muslim scholars Razi and Baidawi taught that this passage deals only with what they called tahrifi-manawi, corruption of the meaning of the word of God, and not tahrifi-lafzi, an alteration of the actual scripture itself. Nowhere does the Qur’an teach that either the Jews or the Christians engaged in a tahrif (corruption) of their holy books and such a charge was never leveled against them in the early centuries of Islam. 2. The Spoken Word of Allah In this verse the Qur’an expressly states that it was the kalam of Allah that was being perverted. This is the spoken word which they "heard" as the verse clearly states. It was not the kitab, the written book, that was being changed. When referring to the Jewish and the Christian scriptures the Qur’an always refers to them as the kitab of Allah. Here it is solely a preached message that is in issue. 3. The Word is the Word Preached by Muhammad

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !207

It is obvious that it was the preaching of the Qur’an that was being misrepresented. A group of people who had heard it preached by Muhammad are said to have perverted it afterwards – how, then, could he hope that they would believe him? It requires a fair stretch of the imagination to turn this into a proof of a corruption of the written text of the Bible! 4. Only a Party of His Hearers Perverted It It is obviously only a group of Jews from Muhammad’s own time who are being charged with misrepresenting his message. The very next verse accuses them of claiming to believe when they meet with Muslims only to privately work out afterwards how to twist the message. Once again it is obvious that this verse does not even remotely deal with any supposed corruption of the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

Verbally Twisting the Word of God Another very similar passage used by Muslim writers as a proof that the Bible has been changed according to the Qur’an but which deals solely with verbal distortions is this one: There is a party of them who twist the Book with their tongues to make you think it is part of the Book, while it is not from the Book, and they say it is from Allah when it is not from Allah, and they consciously lie against Allah. Surah 3:78 It is quite obvious, once again, that the charge is not one of actually corrupting the text of the Bible. The word used to describe what has taken place are yaluwnal-sinatahum meaning very simply "tongue twisting". The use of the Arabic word lisan (tongue) shows clearly that it is only a verbal misrepresentation that is in issue. The issue is purely one of quoting non-Biblical passages as if they were in fact part of the Bible.

Other Passages Relating to the Charge of Tahrif There are a few other texts Muslims use to further their arguments against the integrity of the Bible. One which they think really supports their cause is this one: Then woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say: "This is from Allah" to sell it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands write! And woe for what they gain thereby! Surah 2:79

! 208

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

This time there is a clear statement about actually writing a text purporting to be scripture for resale and profit. It is only small portions of passages compiled by an unnamed group of people that is referred to, however, and yet again there is no charge that the Bible itself was being changed. The original Tawraat and Injil are always spoken of with great reverence and there is not a hint here that these books themselves were being altered. It is other writings that are mentioned. Furthermore the text is too vague, like many of the others, to determine exactly what is being dealt with here. There is no statement as to what was being written, who was actually doing it or precisely when it occurred. The last verse we need to consider which is often quoted by Muslims to show that the Qur’an teaches that the Bible has been changed is this one: O People of the Book! Why do clothe the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth when you know otherwise? Surah 3:71 Yet again, however, it is a general charge of misrepresentation of the truth and in no way can be said to teach that the Bible itself has been changed. The actual scriptures of the Jews and Christians are not even mentioned. It is no wonder that early Muslim scholars only claimed that the Qur’an taught that the tahrif of which it speaks was solely of the meaning and teaching of the scriptures, never of the text itself. Muslims who claim otherwise are consciously "clothing the truth with falsehood" themselves and it is perhaps they who "conceal the truth" when they likewise know otherwise!

1.14 The Tawraat, Injil and Qur’an Muslim: The Bible you have today is not the original Tawraat and Injil which were revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively. You have the books of Paul and other writers but not the Word of God. Where are the original Tawraat and Injil? There are no historical evidences whatsoever that books revealed to Moses and Jesus, in the form of the Qur’an, ever existed. Not so much as a page can be found anywhere to support the Muslim claim that these were the original scriptures. This is all the more strange in the light of the Muslim belief that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved, dot for dot and letter for letter, in its original form. If Allah could so preserve one book, why could he not preserve even so much as a shred of evidence that the other two actually existed? This teaching of the Qur’an has no support at all in the factual records of human history.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !209

The Nature of the Tawraat and Injil The Qur’an, in addition to stating that these two books were actually sent down to Moses and Jesus, also teaches that they were very similar to the Qur’an: He has sent down to you the Scripture (al-Kitab) with truth, confirming what came before it, and he sent down the Law (at-Tawraat) and the Gospel (al-Injil) before it, a guidance to mankind.Surah 3:3 As we have seen the Qur’an is quite correct in dividing the book of the Jews and Christians into two sections even though it often refers to both books collectively as alKitab (the Book) and followers of both religions as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book). We have also observed very clearly that the Qur’an freely recognizes the scriptures that were in the possession of the Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s day as the actual, unchanged Tawraat and Injil respectively. The problem for the Muslims is that the only two books the Jews and Christians have ever known as their holy scripture are the Old and New Testaments respectively. They are very similar in form and style to each other and the latter consistently quotes from the former. Each contains narrative works, prophetic material, quotations from prophets and apostles, the actual words of God and instructive teaching. Neither, however, is remotely like the Qur’an. Muslims spend much time trying to discredit the Bible or prove it has been changed without, perhaps, tackling the key issue. As our two books are so different to any Tawraat and Injil in the form the Qur’an presupposes them to have been, the real task before them is to produce the original books or at least some evidence of their former state. Until they do so it can only be presumed that such books never existed. In turn Muslims will argue that as the Qur’an is the Word of God its statements are the only evidence needed to prove their original existence. On the contrary the absolute silence of history on what would have been the most important books ever to have been handed down militates against the supposed divine origin of the Qur’an. The logical conclusion is that Muhammad knew there had been two former scriptures and that the Jews and Christians had them in their hands and read them daily. He had no reason to doubt their authenticity but wrongly assumed that they were in the form of his Qur’an. More than once Muslims have said to me "Where are the original Tawraat and Injil? Produce them for us to see". My response has always been very emphatic: "No, you produce them! It is your book that alleges their existence, not ours. We have no interest

! 210

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

in such books and do not believe they were ever revealed. The obligation rests on you to present them to us so that we may examine them".

The Law and the Gospel Once again, however, the issue is not one of point-scoring off Muslims. Our ultimate aim is to witness to the grace of God as it has been revealed to us in Jesus Christ and, whenever Muslims raise the issue of the former scriptures, it is an opportunity to ask the quite simply what the titles Tawraat and Injil actually mean. Every Muslim translation of the Qur’an translates these two words "Law" and "Gospel" respectively. What, it might be asked, were they? Why was the Law revealed to Moses and what was the Gospel that came through Jesus? Here is an opportunity to show how no man can be saved by the Law and why salvation is purely by the grace of God in Jesus Christ. This verse sums up the contrast: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 Throughout his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, Paul concentrates on the fact that sin has caused such a devastating breach between God and men that the Law, as revealed to Moses, could not save anybody. The Israelites in the wilderness rejected it entirely by making a golden calf and breaking virtually every one of the ten commandments in one fell swoop through dancing and partying – a bold way of saying to God "We will not obey your laws". Deep within the human heart there is an instinctive resistance to the holy laws of God. Often I have asked Muslims very simply "Is sin acceptable to God or not? Can it be justified in any way?" The answer has always been "No", to which I have responded "Then why don’t you, upon waking tomorrow morning, pledge to God that you will never sin again for the rest of your life?" The response to that has never been quite so emphatic! Muslims know sin dwells deep within them no matter how much Islam may teach them it is only a choice to do a wrong deed as opposed to an equal choice to do right instead. Much can be achieved by showing them that, although sinful man cannot reach up to God, in his kindness and mercy God reached down to us in his Son Jesus Christ. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 That is the Gospel, that is what the expression Injil means. So likewise the very name Jesus means "God is our Savior" (cf. Matthew 1:15). Let the Muslim know precisely what

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !211

the Good News (the meaning of "Gospel") of God’s salvation really is. Whenever a Muslim questions you as to the whereabouts of the original Injil, tell him it is everywhere! When he asks you to produce it, share the good news of the true Gospel with him. Ask him in return what the Arabic expression means and why it is always used in conjunction with the person of Jesus in Islam. Once again be aware of how Muslim arguments can be transformed into wonderful opportunities to witness effectively to them.

1.15 The Old and New Testaments in the Bible Muslim: No matter what you say we are satisfied that the Old and New Testaments are not the true Word of God. At some time in the centuries before Islam they must have been corrupted. Muslims have always unanimously held this view. There are a few points in conclusion that Christians should master to counter the Muslim arguments against the integrity of the Bible.

Prophecies to Jesus in the Old Testament Although the Old Testament is the Jewish Scripture and was completed some centuries before Jesus Christ came to earth, it contains numerous prophecies to Jesus, especially the following two essential features of Christian belief and New Testament teaching: 1. The Deity of Jesus Christ This is foretold in 1 Chronicles 17:13, Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:26-27, Isaiah 9:6 and many other passages of the Old Testament. The Jews could never have allowed the Christians to interpolate such teachings into their holy scripture. 2. The Crucifixion and Atonement The actual event of the crucifixion of Jesus is clearly foretold in Psalm 22:1-21 and Psalm 69:1-29 while the atonement is also set out in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 as well as in other Old Testament passages. This is once again a strong testimony to the integrity of the book for the Jews would surely have replaced these texts first if they had corrupted their scripture at any time.

Who Corrupted the Former Scriptures?

! 212

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

The Muslims have never been able to produce so much as an iota of historical evidence to show who actually corrupted the scriptures and when this took place. It needs to be remembered that the Christian world has freely accepted the Old Testament of the Jews as the unchanged Word of God together with the New Testament. We do not believe that God ever allowed any portion of his Word to be changed. Allof it has been preserved intact, not just one portion of it as Muslims believe. As we have seen the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek was done two centuries before the time of Jesus Christ. It is completely consistent with the oldest Hebrew texts and there can be no doubt that the Old Testament today is the scripture held sacred by the Jews before the times of both Jesus and Muhammad. Yet this same book contains prophecies of both the divinity and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the two New Testament teachings that the Qur’an so strongly denies. Judaism and Christianity are very different, at times strongly opposing religions. Both religions have had their own internal divisions. Are we to seriously believe that, at some unknown point in history, they all came together to change their scriptures by complete agreement? Such an event could hardly have gone undocumented, let alone the possibility of such an improbable conspiracy. Had representatives of even one of the two major religions decided unanimously to pervert the Old Testament, they could never have persuaded the other to do likewise. There is quite simply no logic, evidence or reason in the Muslim contention that the Bible has been changed. It is one of the great illusions of history.

Early Muslim Scholars and the Bible It is very significant that, in the early centuries of Islam, the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments was freely acknowledged and their identity as the Tawraat and Injil of the Qur’an was never disputed. Even though the Bible did not take the form of the Qur’an Muslim scholars accepted it, partly because they knew the Jews and Christians had known no other scripture and partly because the book is an awesome record of God’s dealings with his people from Adam to Jesus Christ. After all, if the Bible does not contain the original books, where did it come from? Why would the Jews and the Christians over so many centuries forge a book of such holy teachings in defiance of the very books of God if they had them in their hands? The attitudes of some of the great Muslim scholars of the earlier centuries of Islam can be contrasted with the prejudicial arguments set forth in modern Muslim publications. 1. Ali Tabari

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !213

He was a well-known physician at the court of the Abbasid Caliph Mutawakkil about two hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death and wrote a defense of the Prophet of Islam including a study of numerous Biblical prophecies which he believed all referred to him. He freely taught that the first book which came into existence was the Tawraat of the Jews and that it was in their possession. He taught the same about the Injil which he likewise conceded was in the hands of the Christians. When speaking of their contents, however, he outlined the contents of the Old and New Testaments respectively. 2. Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali He is one of the most original thinkers the Muslim world has ever known and is generally regarded as its greatest theologian. He wrote a long exposition on the Trinity and, although he lived some five centuries after Muhammad when other radical scholars such as Ibn Hazm were attacking the integrity of the Bible text, he also freely accepted its authenticity. He argued only that the Christians had misinterpreted their scriptures. He died in the year 1111 AD. 3. Fakhruddin Razi Another great and famous theologian, he lived a hundred years after al-Ghazzali and died in 1209 AD. He was quite emphatic about the Biblical text – that it had not been changed and that the teaching and narratives of the Qur’an were perfectly consistent with those of the Bible. These great scholars only perpetuated the position the Qur’an itself takes on the former scriptures – that they are the authentic Word of God and have not been changed. It is important for Christians to know these facts in response to the relentless challenge one experiences these days from Muslim writers who do all they can to undermine the genuineness of the Bible.

! 214

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Chapter Two

The Doctrine of the Trinity The Christian Doctrine of God

2.1 Biblical Origins of the Trinitarian Doctrine Muslim: The Bible nowhere teaches that God is a Trinity. The word "trinity" does not appear in the book. Jews believed in one God while Greeks and Romans believed in many gods. The Church invented the three gods in one theory to placate them both. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the great divisive issues between Christians and Muslims. The latter believe it strikes at the very heart of God’s absolute oneness which is one of the fundamental themes of the Qur’an. Muslims believe that any attempt to attribute partners to Allah is shirk ("associating"), the greatest of all sins and the only one which cannot be forgiven: Truly Allah will not forgive any associating with him but will forgive anything else to whomever he pleases. For whoever associates (shirk) with Allah verily commits a great sin. Surah 4:48 The Christian doctrine is viewed as precisely that – an association of Jesus with God together with the Holy Spirit. For Allah to beget a Son is presumed by Muslims to be the ultimate expression of unbelief. From childhood all Muslims are taught this particular Surah by heart, already quoted in this book, and regarded as one of the greatest in the Qur’an, indeed as equivalent to one-third of the whole book: Say, He is Allah, the One, Allah the Eternal One. He does not beget, nor is he begotten, and like unto him there is not one. Surah 112:1-4 In witness with Muslims you will soon find that, on the one hand, Muslims will strenuously deny any possibility of God being Triune while, on the other, they will vociferously attack the doctrine which they presume to be the weakest point of Christian belief. After all, how can three persons exist in one God? When Christ died, did God die? Did all three persons expire on the cross? They must have if they were one, Muslims will argue. They will also, as the argument cited above does, claim in any event that the Trinity is not found in the Bible. Let us begin by examining clear proofs that the doctrine is firmly founded on the Bible.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !215

The Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit With Muslims it is necessary to emphasize the nature of the Triune God as he is revealed in the Bible – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Let us consider each one in turn. 1. God the Father This is the commonest name for God in the New Testament – the Father – although it is rarely found as a description for God in any other religion and never in Islam. Jesus always spoke of God in heaven as "my Father" (Matthew 18:11), "your Father" (Luke 12:32), "the Father" (John 14:12) and when praying simply addressed him as "Father" (John 11:41). The important point here is that God is spoken of in relational terms. He is not just the sovereign ruler of the universe, he has a definite relationship within his divine being beyond his own individual personality. 2. God the Son It is with a second personality – the Son – that he enjoys his primary relationship. This second person became the man Jesus Christ. He always spoke of himself as the Son of the Father in absolute and exclusive terms. No one knows the Son but the Father and no one knows the Father but the Son (Matthew 11:27). Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him (John 5:23). He came from the Father into the world, he was to leave it and return to the Father (John 16:28). It is important, when discussing the Trinity with Muslims, to emphasize such texts to show the divine relationship between the Father and the Son which no other human being enjoys on such exclusive terms. 3. God the Holy Spirit Throughout the New Testament a third personality constantly appears – the Holy Spirit – and he enjoys an obviously intimate relationship with both the Father and the Son at their divine level. He would be sent by the Son from the Father, he proceeds from the Father, and he bears witness to the Son (John 15:26). The Father would send him in the Son’s name and he would bring to remembrance all that the Son had taught his disciples (John 14:26). All these quotations are from Jesus Christ himself, the great Word of the Father who was in the beginning, was with God, and is God (John 1:1). He is constantly called the Son of God in the Bible, by no less than the Father himself who twice spoke from heaven and declared "This is my beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17, 17:5).

! 216

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Biblical Trinitarian Statements There are a number of statements in the Bible which speak of all three persons of the Trinity in one breath. We will consider three that can effectively be quoted in discussion with Muslims on this subject. 1. Matthew 28:19: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit In this passage Jesus Christ himself commands his disciples to make further disciples throughout the world, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". It is very significant that Jesus spoke of the name of all three, using the singular to denote an absolute unity between them. Likewise the word "name" in the Bible is often used to define something about a person, for example Mosheh(Moses) who was socalled because he was drawn out (mashah) of the water. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus used the word to express the common nature of the three persons, saying in effect "baptising them into theone essence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". 2. 2 Corinthians 13:14: The Triune blessing Paul concludes this letter by commending the Corinthian Christians to the grace of the Son, the love of the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Once again each person of the Trinity is cited in union with the other two and it is a benediction and communion of overall divine goodwill which is commended to them. 3. Ephesians 2:18.Access to the Eternal Father Paul again mentions all three persons of the Trinity together in a statement of common purpose and divine union. In Jesus Christ the Son both Jewish and Gentile believers have access through the same Holy Spirit to the Father. Once again the unity between the three persons cannot be missed and the emphasis, yet again, on the divine realm in which they relate to each other. In Matthew 28:19 it is a common divine nature, in 2 Corinthians 13:14 a common divine blessing, and here a common divine accessibility that are presented to the reader. There are numerous other proofs of the Trinity throughout the Bible. Even in the Old Testament the second person is often mentioned as the Son to the Father as we have seen in the last chapter while the Holy Spirit is often spoken of as God’s direct agent and his own spirit (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 51:11). It is essential, in witness with Muslims, to show that the Church did not invent the Trinity or adapt its belief about God to prevailing monotheistic or polytheistic beliefs, but obtained it directly from the teaching of its original scripture, the Bible.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !217

It is also useful to point out that it was the coming of Jesus Christ into the world that opened up the revelation of God as a triune being. Before him the Old Testament generally spoke of God as Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, but when Jesus began to teach he frequently spoke of God as the Father, himself as the Son and of the coming of the Holy Spirit in such terms as to leave no doubt that all three shared the realm of the divine glory, that they shared a common nature, essence and purpose, and that there was an absolute unity between them. The New Testament, in consequence, focuses consistently on each of the three persons in the divine Trinity as the sphere in which Christian believers can come to know God (the Father), be forgiven by him (through his Son Jesus Christ) and enjoy his divine presence (in the Holy Spirit). All references to Yahweh disappear in the light of the intimate unity which all believers enjoy with God now more fully revealed in his true nature and triune personality.

2.2 The Incomprehensible Nature of God Muslim: The concept of God is very easy to understand in Islam but your Christian doctrine of the Trinity defies reason. Even if you were to write a thousand books you could never fully explain it. Yet our doctrine can easily be placed on a postage stamp: Huwallaahu ahad – He is Allah the One. Muslims sincerely find it very hard to understand how God can be triune and, in explaining the doctrine, Christians are often likely to confuse themselves as much as the Muslims! It is not a simple concept as we should freely concede. Nonetheless its complexity is not an argument against its tenability, if anything it is the strongest point in its favour. After all, we are dealing with the nature of the eternal God of the Universe. He is greater than the heavens and the earth – would it be surprising to us, who are merely mortal, finite creatures, to find that his basic character is incomprehensible? As the Bible itself says: Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven – what can you do? Deeper than Sheol – what can you know? Job 11:7-8 Muslims claim that Islam’s concept of God can very easily be comprehended and is therefore more acceptable than what Christians admit is an incomprehensible doctrine. One cannot help asking whether a concept of God that can easily be understood in the human mind was not perhaps conceived there in the first place. As Kenneth Cragg has said, a doctrine of God does not commend itself by its ability to be reduced to a statement on a postage stamp. We are not dealing with simplicity here. The Muslim

! 218

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

writer Afif Tabbarah is more to the point when he says that the Almighty God is much dissimilar to his creatures and more sublime than simple minds can imagine. â&#x20AC;¨

Searching Out the Knowledge of God The doctrine of the Trinity is not contrary to reason. Quite simply it is above the realms of finite human reasoning. It requires a different approach to come to terms with it. A rational, analytic study of its tenets will yield little of substance. The Apostle Paul once said: Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead? Acts 26:8 Paul, addressing King Agrippa and other members of his court, made no attempt to rationally explain how the dead can be raised back to life. All scientific studies of the world of nature will never be able to give a rational explanation of how this can be possible. The issue here is one of faith. All Muslims, on faith alone, will concede the resurrection of the dead to life. Why then, we may ask, is it thought incredible by any of them that the Almighty God who rules this universe is incomprehensible in his infinite and eternal nature? The New Testament is far more concerned about our relationship with God than our understanding of his nature. What we know about God is not nearly as important as the need to actually know God. The pursuit of his holiness, the forgiveness of our sins and the assurance of eternal life are the concerns of the Christian scriptures. As Paul says, we have come to know God or, rather, to be known of God (Galatians 4:9). It is through the revelation of God in his eternal triune nature, especially as revealed to us in Jesus Christ who is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) in whom the whole fulness of God dwelt bodily (Colossians 2:9), that we have come to know God and to be known of him. Muslims need to be told that what is most important is that we should be right with God, approved of him, loved and forgiven, rather than that we should we able to understand or comprehend his nature. God wants to be loved and obeyed, not studied or analyzed. â&#x20AC;¨

The Trinity: A Divine Revelation It is important also to point out to Muslims that although the mainline Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches have differed on many subjects, they have never even remotely argued over the doctrine of the Trinity including its finer details. The reason is simply that the Church never created this doctrine, it discerned it from a study of the revelation

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !219

of God in the holy scriptures. It is the only doctrine of God that can be formulated from an objective study of the books of the New Testament. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD finally defined the Trinitarian doctrine. The term Trinity was first proposed by Tertullian, the great early African Christian scholar. Muslims often fasten on this as a proof that the doctrine is an invention of the Church some centuries after Christ. Crudely put, some Muslims argue that God had always been a unitarian being until the third century when the Church turned him into a Trinity. I can suggest a very useful line of argument that I have found to be very effective in getting past this objection. For centuries all mankind believed that the earth was flat and that the sun, planets and stars revolved around it. A few centuries ago Galileo, Copernicus and other astronomers began proclaiming that in fact the earth is round, is suspended in space, and is revolving around the sun. The theory was denounced (most prominently by the Church!) for the simple reason that throughout history it was common knowledge that the earth was flat and, in any event, common sense could tell anyone that this planet was not moving and that the sky was rotating around us. The idea that we are circling at more than one thousand miles an hour on our own axis daily, are revolving around the sun at tens of thousands of miles an hour, and are spinning through the universe at even phenomenally greater speeds, was to the minds of people of those days entirely irrational. It is only because we have scientific proof that we accept the theory today but it is still very hard to comprehend. God’s nature, however, cannot be scientifically proved. He may, however, turn out to be very opposite to what people naturally would expect just as the planetary system has done. Yet the Church discerned the Triune nature of God some fourteen centuries before the truth about our universe was discovered. Why? Simply because God revealed his true nature to us in the scriptures. The Church did not turn God into a Trinity – he was so from all eternity. Some Muslims argue that the Trinity cannot be mathematically proved. After all, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, they argue. There is no way they can be made to be one. Yet even mathematics uses an independent symbol, ∞, to define infinity, simply because it cannot be multiplied, divided, added to or subtracted from by ordinary numerals. So too the infinite God cannot be comprehended in finite terms and our mathematics are a quite inadequate standard for determining eternal realities! Christianity makes no attempt to present a comprehensible God to the world. Its aim is to reveal a knowable God – the Father who loves his own children, the Son who died to redeem them, and the Holy Spirit who renews and sanctifies them. Man’s goal is to get to heaven and to be with God – not to able to plot heaven on a map or produce a

! 220

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

concept of God that can be easily comprehended, analyzed or reduced to a statement on a postage stamp.

2.3 The Unity of God: The Basis of the Trinity Muslim: The truth is that Christians in fact worship three gods and are guilty of shirk. The Bible emphasises the fact that God is one God. Your doctrine is inconsistent with your own scripture. You cannot put three personalities into one God. It is intriguing to find Muslims arguing that the Bible emphatically teaches that God is one as if this undermined the Trinity doctrine. The Old Testament declares that "the Lord is God on heaven above and on earth beneath – there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:39) while the New Testament likewise states "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29) and that "God is one" (Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20). It is useful in conversation with Muslims on the Trinity, nevertheless, to quote these texts to establish the point from the outset that the unity of God is as much a fundamental teaching of the whole Bible as it is in the Qur’an. The issue is the complex nature of this unity in the Biblical doctrine of the Triune God.

God: A Tri-Unity, not a Tritheism How can three be one, the Muslim fairly asks? All human beings are distinct creatures and personalities. In no way can three of them become one being with one single nature. Our answer to this has to be to go to the Bible and see how it projects the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 1. 1 John 1:5: God is Light The Bible focuses on this theme often. God is called the "Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). The Son of God, Jesus Christ, also declared "I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life" (John 8:12) while the New Testament also says of him that he likewise will never change, being the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Through the Holy Spirit, furthermore, God shines into our hearts to give "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6). There is clearly an absolute unity of essence and purpose between them. 2. John 3:33: God is True

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !221

Just as this text declares Truth to be an essential essence of God the Father, so the Son of God could declare "I am the Truth" (John 14:6). Likewise the Holy Spirit is called the "Spirit of Truth" (John 15:26). There is no falsehood in any of them. Once again one discovers that, while human beings may differ in personality and character, there are no such differences between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are the Truth. 3. 1 John 4:8: God is Love The New Testament often speaks of the love of the Father (John 16:27) but goes on to say that the love of God was made manifest in the fact that he sent his Son to redeem us from our sins (Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10). Likewise it states that God’s love has been "poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Romans 5:5). Again we have an absolute unity in essence and purpose between the three persons of the Trinity. Much the same can be said of the life of God. As the Father is the source of all life, so the Son called himself "the Life" (John 11:25, 14:6) and is called the Author of Life (Acts 3:15). The Holy Spirit is likewise the one through whom God will give eternal life to our mortal bodies (Romans 8:11). In all these texts we can see a divine tri-unity, not three independent personalities. Our doctrine is only held within a definition of God’s unity. Without it the Trinity’s fundamental nature falls away. You quite simply cannot establish the doctrine outside of God’s essential oneness. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and this total unity is shared with the Holy Spirit.

Early Muslim Reactions to the Trinity It is very interesting to see how early Muslim writers responded to the doctrine of the Trinity. The most important and exhaustive work was a dissertation in the ninth century after Christ by Abu Isa al-Warraq which he titled Ar-Radd ala al-Tathlith ("The Refutation of the Trinity"). Abu Isa wrote purely in response to the Christian theorists of his day. They taught the tri-unity of God in a very technical manner and focused on the Son as the Word and the Spirit as the Life – a poor distinction as Jesus Christ so often spoke of himself as "the Life" as we have seen. Just as modern Christians often use illustrations to define the Trinity (such as the one egg with three parts, its shell, yolk and white), so the Christians of those days also used what in my mind was an inadequate (and often misleading) approach. They tried, from reason, to prove that three separate hypostases could be one being.

! 222

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Abu Isa responded in kind. He followed the principle first stated by the Muslim scholar Al-Kindi, namely that God is a being who is neither multiple or divisible in any way, not by his essence nor by something other than it, and one whose substance likewise cannot be divided or multiplied in any way. While most Muslim writers usually attacked the Christian doctrine from a Qur’anic standpoint, namely that Allah could not have a Son, has no partners, and that Jesus was only a messenger, Abu Isa took the doctrine at face value. He made himself well acquainted with it. He argued that if the hypostases are the substance, and the substance is one and undifferentiated while the hypostases are three, then the Christians have made what is differentiated not differentiated. Again, he argued, if the substance is identical to the hypostases, the one must be the other. There cannot be three of one and one of the other. If they are distinct, the substance is a fourth. Abu Isa based his arguments on the popular rational theories of his day, one of which was that human reason is always the sole criterion of judgment and that prophets must speak within its dictates. You can see what happens when Christians try to prove the Trinity by analytical reasoning and on finite principles. Once again I must emphasize the point made in the introduction to this book – be Biblical and not doctrinal, rational or illustrative in your answers. Our response to the Muslim is that our doctrine is the product of divine revelation and cannot be judged by finite human reasoning. We respond to what God has revealed about himself because, as Carl Pfander said, human reason cannot grasp the eternal being. Its dim torch must give way to the bright sunrise of truth.

2.4 Does the Doctrine have Pagan Origins? Muslim: Your doctrine is founded on contemporary pagan religions which all had their own trinities of gods long before Christianity came into being. The Egyptians, Hindus, Romans and Greeks all had triads of deities in which they believed. The Muslim tendency to overlook the essential unity of the Triune God and to regard the Christian faith as tritheistic leads to charges that the doctrine has parallels in ancient pagan religions where a plurality of deities were worshipped. All sorts of examples are proposed in Muslim writings on the subject.

Specific Examples of Supposed Parallels

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !223

All sorts of triads are mentioned in Muslim writings, such as the Greek gods Zeus, Demeter and Apollo, even though there was never any suggestion of an absolute unity between them or any semblance to the actual Biblical Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We will look at two of the commonest examples Muslim writers cite to prove their case. 1. The Egyptian Gods Osiris, Isis and Horus In Muslim publications it is often argued that the Egyptians also had their own trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus and that these were, as claimed by a Muslim writer, a "kind of trinity of gods" who were supposed to be the Egyptian equivalent of the Trinity. It is once again important, in discussion with Muslims, to emphasize the essential unity of God and the fundamental monotheism of the Christian faith. The very word Trinity embodies a divine unity and only a Muslim can know what he means when he speaks of a "trinity of gods". The very expression is self-contradictory. The mythological family of gods known as Osiris, Isis and Horus constituted a family of father, mother and son – as far from the Christian doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as you can get. Furthermore they were only three of a multiplicity of Egyptian deities which also included Nun, Atum, Ra, Khefri, Shu, Tefnut, Anhur, Geb, Nut and Set. There were also more than one Horus – Horus the elder, Horus of Edfu, Horus son of Isis, etc. The Egyptians were not trinitarians believing in one Supreme Being who is triune in personality and nature. They worshipped many gods of whom Osiris, Isis and Horus were but three and they did not believe that these three shared an absolute unity. As will be seen these pagan triads are closer to the Qur’anic misconception of the Christian doctrine than they are to the actual doctrine as it is founded on the Bible. 2. The Hindu Trimurti: Brahma, Vishnu and Siva The Hindus have a belief in a Trimurti – a triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. Muslims often claim that the Christian Trinity is founded on this concept as well. An historical analysis of the Hindu theory will soon show, likewise, that there is not even a remote parallel between the two. Brahma is an impersonal deity in Hinduism with no personality, representing everything that exists in a state of perfect nirvana (absorption in a universal state). Vishnu was married to a female deity andSiva is the great god of the Hindu Savites. They have no particular relationship with each other. Hinduism has numerous other deities such as Krishna, Rama, Sita, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali and others. The Upanishads, Vedas and other ancient Hindu texts taught no such thing as a threefold

! 224

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

relationship between Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. The Vedas acknowledged at least thirtythree different deities who were separate gods, often opposed to each other. Most of them were married to Hindu goddesses. The Trimurti concept is only found in late Sanskrit and cannot be dated earlier than the 5th century after Christ â&#x20AC;&#x201C; long after the Christian doctrine of the Trinity had been fully established. Muslims are, quite simply, doing all they can to father the Christian belief in a Triune God on all sorts of pagan deities even though there is no similarity between them. â&#x20AC;¨

The Uniqueness of the Biblical Trinity Muslims who argue that our doctrine has pagan origins will have to produce far better proofs and actual chains of evidences to prove that it is dependent on pagan beliefs. The doctrine of the Trinity is an absolutely unique one which has no parallels in any other religion or philosophy. No one could have invented it and it would never have been discovered had it not been revealed to us in the pages of the New Testament. It originated in a dominantly monotheistic Jewish world and represents a deity entirely consistent with the God of Israel of the Old Testament. When Muslims argue a pagan origin for the Trinity the Christian has a great opportunity to witness very effectively to the glory of God and his great work of salvation for us. The unique feature of our doctrine is its threefold personality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The New Testament writers themselves made no effort to define the Christian doctrine of God or to codify or explain it. They simply proclaimed it!It was left to later generations of Christian scholars to interpret their teachings in a clearly defined doctrine. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and the other New Testament authors were concerned primarily to project the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to Christian believers. The aim was to call forth a response of faith from the heart and to strengthen it. As pointed out already, God does not want to be defined, analyzed or conceptualized as much as he wants to be believed, obeyed and implicitly trusted. He cannot be seen, materialized, computerized or reduced to anything that can be finitely determined. He can, however, be known and the issue between Christians and Muslims is not so much one of his identity but rather of what we most urgently need to secure, namely to be forgiven by him, to receive his Spirit, to personally know him, to become his children and to eventually inherit his kingdom.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !225

In the next section we will look at the best ways of canvassing the Trinity with Muslims and will see why it is better to use this subject as an opportunity for witness rather than one to be argued or proved.

2.5 The Father, Son and Holy Spirit Muslim: The Qur’an teaches that man’s highest honour is to be a servant of Allah who is our Lord and Master. What is required is that we should obey his laws and believe in the Last Day when we hope he will forgive us our sins. To a Muslim God’s favor cannot be guaranteed, his forgiveness cannot be assured in this life, and it is not possible to know him or to enter into a personal relationship with him. The Qur’an says: There is no one in the heavens and the earth who can come to the Compassionate except as a servant. Surah 19:93 The word used for servant is abd and earlier in the same surah Jesus is recorded as declaring "I am a servant of Allah" (Surah 19:30) where the same Arabic word is used. According to Islam this is the highest status of any man before Allah – no more than a servant to his divine Master and Judge. Hence Muslims believe that they need to live purely as servants of God, working to earn his favor and hoping for his good pleasure on their lives when the great Day of Resurrection comes. Here the Christian has a glorious field to proclaim the Trinity in such a way as to set forth a much greater hope and more glorious God.

The Father: God For Us According to the Hadith records of Islam Allah has ninety-nine "beautiful names" (alasma’ ul husna) which are his attributes. Whoever recites them can expect to enter into Paradise (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1410). The first thirteen occur in order in Surah 59:22-24 and begin as follows: Ar-Rahman (The Compassionate), Ar-Rahim (The Merciful), Al-Malik (The Sovereign), Al-Quddus (The Holy), etc. According to Sufi Muslims Allah has a hundredth name which has been revealed only to the great Sufi masters of history. I have often suggested to Muslims that, if a name is missing from the hundred names of Allah, it is not the hundredth but rather the first, the commonest title for God in the New Testament – the Father. It is most significant to find that God is nowhere called Father in the Qur’an or any other work of early Islamic literature. The point is, logically,

! 226

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

that if the greatest role men can have towards God is solely to be his servants as the Qur’an teaches, then he can only be their Master (Al-Malik). The Qur’an quite simply does not allow for the possibility that we can become children – in fact it states the opposite quite emphatically (Surah 6:100). When Jesus began to preach, however, he consistently taught that God is the Father of all true believers. This title, given to the first person of the Trinity, tells us that God is for us. If he has become our Father, then we are no longer just slaves and servants of God but his children. It is very useful to compare the roles of a servant and a child with Muslims in conversation. A servant has to earn his keep every day. His master does not necessarily have any affection for him, he only expects him to do his duty. The servant can be dismissed if he does not perform his task properly. He likewise will live outside his master’s home in his own quarters. A child, however, knows he is loved by his father and that he will never be dismissed from his father’s home. He does not have to earn his place, he has it by right. He lives in his father’s home in his own room. He experiences a freedom a servant never has because he knows his father is for him. So it is with true Christians who know God’s love personally. See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 1 John 3:1 Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Luke 12:32 It is only by knowing God as Father that the fulness of his love can truly be known and that believers, as his children, can be assured of his goodwill towards them and their place in the coming kingdom.

God the Son: God With Us Jesus Christ constantly not only called himself the Son of God but also assured his disciples that, through faith in him, they too could become children of God. It is in the willingness of Jesus to lay down his life for us that we see the love of God actually revealed to us. Here, too, is God with us. By taking human form the Son, the Second person of the Trinity, also brought God and man together in a new and unique way. I have often asked Muslims what the greatest act of Allah’s love towards them has ever been and have received a variety of answers. Has he, however, ever given of himself to reveal his love for them in the same way that Abraham did when he was prepared to sacrifice his own son as the supreme test of his love for God? Islam has no positive

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !227

answer to this question. Only in the revelation of the Triune God can you find such a perfect display of love. It is summed up in these words: In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation of our sins. 1 John 4:10 God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 In Jesus we can be assured of the forgiveness of our sins and are able to behold just how great God’s love is for us. Muslims do not know such love. When the Qur’an speaks of the love of God and calls him the Al-Wadud – the Loving One (Surah 85:14), it means (according to Muslim scholars) only that he expresses approval over those who follow him. It does not mean that he has any personal feelings towards them or that he is prepared to make any sacrifice to show his love towards mankind. In my experience there are numerous Muslims who warm freely to the Christian revelation of God’s love in Christ. Human beings are capable of expressing the greatest acts of sacrificial love towards those they cherish and many Muslims long to know God in the same way and actually be assured of his eternal favor and personal love towards them. In Jesus Christ alone they can find it, the very one who fulfilled his own saying that no greater love can a man have for his friends than to lay down his life for them (John 15:13). It is our most powerful point of witness.

God the Holy Spirit: God In Us It is in the third person of the Trinity that God’s love can not only be known, seen but also actually personally experienced. Jesus spoke often of the need to receive him – the Holy Spirit. It is not just some special force or divine power, he is the very Spirit of God and, when he indwells anyone, in a unique way (true only of believers) God himself actually lives in that person. Here we see the third great effect of the revelation of the Triune God – God in us. No wonder the New Testament writers made no effort to define the Trinity or explain it. To know God, to be assured that he is for us, with us and in us, is all that we need to know to fully relate to him. The Spirit gives believers power to live according to God’s holy laws but, more than this, he gives a living experience of God’s presence in us. God sent forth his Son so that we might become his children but, because we are children, he also sends his Spirit into our hearts so that we may actually be able to cry out "Abba! Father!" (Galatians 4:4-6). When we cry, "Abba! Father!", it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirits that we are children of God. Romans 8:15-16

! 228

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Hope does not disappoint us because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. Romans 5:5 I have found an illustration very helpful at this point. A couple may decide to adopt an orphan and will go through a legal process to officially confirm the adoption. The child will still not know he has parents and a home but when his new father and mother take him to their own home, show him his room and tell him that the house is his also, thereafter embracing him affectionately, he will know he is no longer an orphan and will personally experience their love for him. This what happens when the Holy Spirit enters our hearts. There is no better way to explain the Trinity to a Muslim than to show him this threefold revelation of God’s love for us – a revelation that stops at nothing less than perfection itself. It is only in the Triune God that such love could ever be, or has ever been, shown in all its fulness. In the introduction to this book I said that Christians must be Biblical in their witness and nowhere does this apply more importantly than to the subject of the Trinity. Do not let Muslims weigh you down with arguments against the logical reasonableness of the doctrine, nor try to make your point through defective three-in-one illustrations. Use the opportunity to show them that the Triune personality of God was only finally revealed when Jesus Christ came to earth and spoke freely of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It was only when the time had fully come for God’s love to be completely expressed in Christ that the true nature of God’s whole being was imparted to us and this is why the New Testament writers focused on this theme and no other when dealing with the Trinity. We will do well to do likewise in our witness to Muslims.

2.6 The Qur’an and the Christian Doctrine Muslim: The Qur’an denies the Trinity expressly. God is only one God – not three as you believe. It is a great blasphemy to say that Allah has any partners. Everything in the heavens and the earth gives glory to him alone. The great cause of Muslim misconceptions about the Trinity is the complete misrepresentation of it in the Qur’an. The word "Trinity" also nowhere occurs in this book but it is clear that the Qur’an is out to oppose the Christian belief in a threefold divine existence, no matter what form it may take. Nonetheless it does not even begin to address the basic Christian belief in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but reacts to a perversion of it possibly derived from sectarian beliefs in and around the Arabian peninsula.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !229

The Qur’anic Threesome: Jesus, Mary and Allah The Qur’an quite emphatically rejects the Christian belief as a triad of deities and names them as Jesus, his mother Mary, and Allah – in that order! In three passages this concept is assailed as polytheistic and blasphemous. The first reads as follows: And do not say: Three. Desist – it is better for you! Truly Allah is only One. Glorified be he above taking a son to himself. Surah 4:171 The word used here for "three" is thalathah, a common Qur’anic word appearing nineteen times in the book. It always means "three" and cannot be translated or rendered "Trinity". The command not to speak of Allah as a threesome is contained in a passage exhorting Christians generally not to exaggerate in their religion. By contrasting the oneness of God with the threefold Christian deity it is clear that the Qur’an is unaware of the essential unity of the Christian doctrine of God. In another passage the Qur’an actually identifies the three different deities which Christians supposedly worship. Interestingly all three passages which deal with this subject come from the very last portions of the Qur’an to come to Muhammad and it seems that it was only late in his life that he first heard of a Christian divine threesome without ever having the opportunity to discover precisely what the Trinity represents. The second verse on this subject reads: They speak blasphemy who say that Allah is the third of three. There is indeed no god except the one God. Surah 5:73 The words used in the first sentence to express the "third of three" are thalithu thalathah. Once again there is no specific reference to the Trinity or any awareness that the Christian God is a Triune being. The distinction, yet again, is purely between one and three with no allowance for a threefold unity. A few verses later the Qur’an identifies the other two deities in the triad Christians are supposed to worship: The Messiah son of Mary was only a messenger; messengers before him had passed away. And his mother was upright. They both had to eat food. Surah 5:75 The argument is quite clear. Jesus and his mother Mary were only human beings. Though he was a messenger of Allah others just like him had preceded him. And his mother was no more than a righteous servant of Allah. After all, they both had to eat food to sustain themselves. So how could they be deities along with Allah? The Qur’an has clearly mistaken the Christian doctrine and represented it as a triad of Jesus, Mary

! 230

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

and Allah. It is most significant to find Allah described only as the third of these three. In the Christian doctrine of the Triune God the Father at least has first place! There were various sects such as the Nestorians, Monophysites and others in the vicinity of Arabia who had confusing beliefs about God, Jesus and Mary but none of them represented the Trinity as consisting of these three. You can see why Muslims think our beliefs are based on the Egyptian Father-Mother-Son family of Osiris, Isis and Horus. What is most probable is that Muhammad was totally unaware of the actual Triune God of the Christian faith and simplistically confused it with pagan beliefs in a Father-Mother-Son triad. If God was indeed the author of the Qur’an it is hard to see how he could make such a mistake and not even remotely represent the Christian doctrine, held to by all the major Christian churches of the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one eternal Supreme Being. The third passage which canvasses the supposed Christian belief in three separate deities is this one: And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say to mankind "Take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah"? He will say, Glory to you! I would not have said what I had no right to say. If I had said it, you would have known it. You know what is in my mind though I do not know what is in yours. You are the Knower of the Unseen. Surah 5:116 Once again the other two deities are said to be Jesus and Mary. The veneration of Mary has been a major article of Roman Catholic belief and the Ethiopian Church, in particular, has historically revered her as the mother of God. It seems, however, that their excesses and confusion have only resulted in the Qur’an compounding the confusion! No Christian Church, no matter how much it reveres or glorifies Mary as, for example, the Queen of Heaven, has ever confused the Trinity or made it out to be what the Qur’an represents it to be. When Muslims challenge the doctrine of the Trinity and will not allow that it is an expression of divine unity in a different form to the unitarian concept of the Qur’an it is important to raise these texts as evidence, firstly, that the Qur’an misrepresents the doctrine completely and, secondly, that it is the source of the erroneous Muslim conviction that we believe in three separate gods. It is also important to know that the true Christian doctrine was known in Arabia prior to Muhammad’s time. Edward Glasser, an explorer in Yemen, discovered an inscription there in 1888 in a narrative about the revolt against the Ethiopian rule in the country in pre-Islamic times. The inscription dates to 542 AD – twenty eight years before Muhammad’s birth – and it reads in Arabic (without vowels which were not written in

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !231

the Arabic of the time): Rhmn w mshh w rh qds – "(In the power of) the Compassionate, and the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit". Thus the true nature of the Christian Trinity was known in the Arabian Peninsula many years before the Qur’an ever came to be written and the book’s total misrepresentation of the doctrine can only be ascribed to Muhammad’s personal ignorance of Christian theology.

! 232

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Chapter Three

Jesus the Son of the Living God The Deity of Jesus Christ in the Bible

3.1 The Qur’anic Rejection of Jesus’ Deity Muslim: The Qur’an is quite emphatic in denying that Jesus is the Son of God. He was only a prophet just like all the other prophets who went before him. If Jesus is the Son of God, who was God’s wife? You speak a great blasphemy against Allah. What to Christians is the foundation of their belief – that Jesus Christ is God’s own Son who alone could redeem us from our sins and take us into heaven – is to the Muslims one of the greatest expressions of unbelief and the one which, more than any other, is likely to keep them out of heaven. It is crucial to recognize this. In fact the distance between Christians and Muslims on the person of Jesus is the greatest factor driving Christianity and Islam apart. The greatest stumbling-block to bringing Muslims to Christ is the flat rejection of his deity in the Qur’an.

Allah has Taken Neither a Wife nor a Son In the last chapter we saw that the Qur’an misrepresents the Trinity as a family of Allah, Mary and Jesus. On this subject, namely Jesus as the Son of God, the Qur’an takes it to mean that Allah must have taken a wife to himself to have a son. It seems Muhammad was unable to consider the title in anything but finite, human terms. The Qur’an says: Creator of the heavens and the earth! How can he have a son when he has no consort? Surah 6:101 And glorious is the majesty of our Lord – he has taken neither a consort nor a son! Surah 72:3 It seems that Muhammad understood this doctrine purely in a carnal sense and could not see what Muslims need to know, namely that the spiritual relationship between them is the same as that of a father to a son. Three main principles are involved here: 1. The Same Essence of Being

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !233

Just as fathers and sons on earth are both human and have the same essential being, so in heaven the Father and Son are both divine. The Son took human form at a point in history and became the man Jesus Christ. The Father never took to himself a Son, they were so from all eternity and will always remain so. 2. The Authority of the Father Although the same in essence, the Father has authority over the Son just as on earth sons, though as human as their fathers, submit to their control over their lives. That is why, when on earth, Jesus could assume a relationship of master and servant as well, just as sons in their father’s businesses submit to their rule and lordship. 3. His Affection Towards His Son While a father has authority over his son, he nonetheless will feel a greater affinity with him than he does with any servant and all he has will eventually be passed on to the son. Although the Son could do nothing of his own accord but only what he saw his Father doing (John 5:19), nonetheless the Father has a special love for the Son (John 5:20) and reveals all his purposes to him, intending one day to delegate his authority to him so that all the earth will honor the Son in the same way it honors the Father (John 5:22-23). This is what the Bible means when it says that Jesus is the Son of God. The issue is relational in an eternal, spiritual context. It is not a carnal, earthly one as the Qur’an supposes.

The Great Unpardonable Sin in Islam To Muhammad the belief in Jesus as the Son of God appeared to be parallel to the pagan Arab belief that many of their idols, such as Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were the "daughters of Allah". Idolatry, per se, was to the Prophet of Islam an act of blasphemy, ascribing as it did partners to Allah which was unthinkable and an affront to the very glory of his being. The problem seems to have arisen from the environment Muhammad found himself in. When dealing with the Arab concept, he attacked the contradictory nature of their convictions. They believed, after all, that the birth of a daughter was a cause of grief and shame (Surah 16:58-59). How then could they believe that Allah would take only daughters to himself while giving them sons according to their preferences (Surah 43:16)! With the Christians, however, he contented himself with simply emphatically denying that Jesus is the Son of God in verses like these:

! 234

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

And the Christians say that the Messiah is the Son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They but imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved before. Qaatalahumullaah – Allah’s curse be upon them! How they are turned away! Surah 9:30 They say Allah has taken a son. Subhaanah – Glory to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! All that is in the heavens and the earth is his! You have no justification for this. How can you say of Allah what you do not know? Surah 10:68 These are very strong denunciations. Muhammad thought it compromised the glory of God to say he had a Son whereas, according to the Bible, the revelation of his grace, mercy and kindness in giving his Son to die for us is the greatest proof of his glory! Christians need to emphasize this great truth in their witness with Muslims as they are very conscious of the need to honor his glory above all else. The great tragedy of the denial of Jesus’ deity in the Qur’an is the fact that it is identified with the greatest of all sins in Islam – ascribing partners to Allah. As we have seen in the previous chapter this sin is unforgivable in Islam, indeed it is the only unforgivable sin according to the Qur’an (Surah 4:48), and will keep a Muslim out of Jannat al-Firdaus (the Gardens of Paradise) forever. The Apostle John wrote to the Christians of his day, encouraging them in the knowledge that they had eternal life in believing in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13). In his Gospel he plainly taught that all who do not believe in his name are already condemned and that only those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God will be saved (John 3:18). What to the Christian is the only door to heaven is, to the Muslim, the one sure step into the abyss! The Qur’an argues that, as Allah has no partners, he cannot have taken to himself a son. In one place it does not seem to teach that it is absolutely impossible for him to have a Son but rather that "it is not befitting to him to do so" (Surah 19:35). The issue seems to be one of what glorifies him and here the Christian has his opening for witness. Jesus Christ revealed the glory of God in a way it might otherwise never have been known: 1. The Greatest Display of God’s Love for the World We have already looked at this subject in the last chapter. Islam has no parallel to the example of God’s sacrificial love in giving what was dearest to him, his own Son to die for our salvation. If he is prepared to give so much for us we can be sure that he will eventually give us all things with him (Romans 8:32). 2. A Perfect Example of God’s own Humble Spirit It is freely acknowledged by Muslims that pride is an ugly thing, a character defect. Who is to say that, if God is so concerned to maintain his own glory above all of his

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !235

creation all the time (as the Qur’an seems to teach), he did not create it purely to lord himself over it? When the Son of God came to earth we were able to witness the wondrous humility of God. Although he had a divine form by right, the Son did not proudly grasp at his equality with the Father but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant in becoming a human being. Moreover, he did not stop there but humbled himself further, becoming obedient to death, even such a shameful demise as death on a cross (Philippians 2:6-8). The Bible plainly teaches that God has a day against all that is proud and lofty, haughtily lifted up and high (Isaiah 2:12), and that he dwells rather with those who are of a humble and contrite spirit (Isaiah 57:15). It is only through the Son of God that this aspect of God’s glory can be truly known and experienced. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We have no apology to make to the Muslim world for this belief, only a message of glorious good news to proclaim. When Muslims raise the issue of his deity, look for every means you can to turn their arguments into an opportunity to testify of God’s great love for them as it is revealed in Christ.

3.2 The Son of God in a Metaphorical Sense? Muslim: Even if Jesus did call himself the Son of God, it was only in a metaphorical sense. We are all children of God and your Bible more than once calls all believers "the sons of God". You have taken this too far by making him the eternal Son of God. It is a common argument among Muslims. As Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad has said, Jesus may be called a son of God in the sense in which all righteous human beings can be called the children of God, but not in a literal or unique sense. Often scriptural passages are presented to prove the point.

Biblical Usage of the Term "Sons of God" Muslims usually base their argument around the following passage, though others from the Bible are often presented as well: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said ‘I am the Son of God’?" John 10:34-36 The Muslims argue that, by quoting Psalm 82:6 where all believers are also called "sons of the Most High", Jesus was saying no more than that he too was one of the children of God. The important thing here is the implied admission by Muslims that Jesus did call

! 236

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

himself the Son of God in one or other sense. When Muslims argue that he only assumed the title in a symbolic or metaphorical sense, Christians should immediately place them on terms to admit that he did use the title for himself in some form. Their argument has no substance without this admission. Thereafter the discussion can be focused on the actual sense in which he used it. The Bible says that God, speaking of Solomon, declared "I will be his father, and he will be my son" (1 Chronicles 17:13) and it also speaks of Adam as "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). All Christian believers, led by the Spirit of God, are said to be "the sons of God" (Romans 8:14). In other passages similar expressions are used. As Ahmed Deedat has often said, "According to the Bible God has sons by the tons!". It is indeed a fair and valid question on the Muslim’s part to enquire why Jesus Christ should be regarded as the Son of God in an eternal and absolute sense alone. Before answering it, however, one point needs to be made here. When Muslims argue that "we are all the children of God" they are going against the Qur’an which expressly states that Allah has "neither sons or daughters" in any form (Surah 6:100). It is only in the Christian Bible that the possibility of becoming God’s children and knowing him as Father appears. This is solely because the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has made this possible by laying down his life for our redemption.

Jesus: The Eternal Son of God A Christian, in witness to Muslims, must know at least some of the main evidences that Jesus taught that he was the Son of God in a unique and absolute sense. For example, when he was brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin the night of his arrest, after the chief priests could find nothing against him, the High Priest Caiaphas stood up and emphatically asked him "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?". He replied equally unambiguously "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61-62). The High Priest tore his robes, charging him with blasphemy. His question was not "Are you one of the children of God?". If it was, the answer could not have occasioned a charge of blasphemy. Everyone knew exactly what the issue was – did he claim to be the Son of God, the eternal Son of the Blessed? Jesus’ answer could hardly be misrepresented – he did! There are numerous passages which make it quite plain why the High Priest believed he was claiming to be the only, eternal Son of God. The following statement is a typical proof:

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !237

No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matthew 11:27 Likewise, when Jesus said that the Father has given all judgment to the Son so that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father (John 5:22), it is impossible to see how such a claim to be the Son of God could have been made in a lesser or metaphorical sense. It is also very useful to quote the two occasions when God himself, speaking from heaven of Jesus, declared "This is my Beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17, 17:5). Nonetheless it is in a parable of Jesus that I have found the most effective proof that he was not just a prophet like those who preceded him but was the unique Son of God. It is the Parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard (Matthew 21:33-43, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-18). A number of servants were sent by the owner of the vineyard to collect his fruits but they took one, stoned another and killed another. When he sent still more they did the same, beating some, wounding others and killing the rest. The climax is reached in these words: He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son’. But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’. And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. Mark 12:6-8 The interpretation of the parable is obvious – God had sent numerous servants to his people in their own promised land, namely the prophets, but they mistreated them and rejected them in various ways. As Peter said on another occasion, "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?" (Acts 7:52). Finally he had sent his beloved Son, Jesus Christ, whom he predicted they would kill – a clear prophecy of his coming crucifixion. The contrast between the great prophets of old as nothing more than the servants of God, and the last messenger as the unique, beloved Son, cannot be mistaken. It is the whole thrust of the parable. There are many other passages which can be used to show that Jesus Christ claimed to be the unique Son of God and never used the title for himself in a metaphorical or symbolic sense.

3.3 Biblical Limitations on the Son of God Muslim: If Jesus is the eternal Son of God, why did he so often speak of the Father as greater than he was in power, authority and knowledge? Surely, if he was divine as you claim, he should have been equally omnipotent and omniscient.

! 238

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Few Christians outside of Muslim evangelism have faced one of the most challenging arguments that Muslims often produce, namely that Jesus could not have been the eternal Son of God if he was limited in power and knowledge as many of his statements seem to suggest.

The Knowledge and Power of Jesus Three passages are often quoted by Muslims to prove their point. They all appear to limit his authority and status and we will consider each one in turn. In each case it will be seen that a very effective witness to the glory of Jesus can be given in reply to their arguments. 1. Divine Facts not Known to Jesus Muslims reason that if Jesus, as the Son of God, was the second person of the divine Trinity, he should have known all things. If God is omniscient, he should also have had a universal knowledge. The following verse appears to undermine this assumption: But of that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Matthew 24:36 How could Jesus have been omniscient if he denied knowledge of the exact hour of judgment? The important thing is to see where Jesus places himself in the categories he mentions. No man knows the hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. There is clearly an ascending scale. Jesus places himself exclusively above all men and angels, relating himself solely in a divine context to the Lord of all the earth, defining himself in intimate terms – the Son of the Father. All that can be concluded is that, despite such a high status, it is possible for the Father, the eternal source of all things to whom both the Son and Spirit are subject, to decree the final Day without disclosing the exact time to anyone else. The limitation on the Son of God does not undermine his deity – it merely indicates a special definition of it. 2. An Inability to do Anything without the Father Just as Jesus does not appear to be omniscient, so there appears to be a challenge to his omnipotence in the following verses: The Son can do nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing ... I can do nothing on my own authority. John 5:19,30

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !239

Once again, as soon as one looks at the context of these statements (which seem to indicate that Jesus was powerless in himself), it becomes clear that we are only dealing with an explanation of his relationship to the Father, not of a denial of his deity. Jesus goes on to say in the first statement "For whatever he does, that the Son does likewise". It is only a question again of subjection to the Father’s authority. When it comes to the actual power to do what the Father does, Jesus claimed equal power to do whatever he does – a clear proof of his deity – and states that he only does what the Father does, a natural action when the two are one in a single Divine Being. 3. A Declaration of the Father’s Superior Greatness The third verse commonly used to prove limitations on the Son of God from his own statements is this one: If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. John 14:28 Muslims fasten on to this statement as a proof of Jesus’ humility in acknowledging God’s superior greatness to man, a declaration one might have expected from any true prophet. The fact is – no other prophet ever made such a declaration. In fact, were any ordinary man to make it, it would be close to blasphemy. While it is a statement of limitation, it is also an awesome claim to greatness on Jesus’ part! To have to actually inform his disciples that the Father, ultimately, is indeed greater than he is a clear sign that he held a great regard for his own greatness! Once again he measures himself on a divine level alone, relating himself solely to the Father. The limitation is purely in his role as the Son of God. It is important to recognize that there is a limitation on the Son of God, one placed there in the sayings of Jesus himself. Too often Christians fall into the trap of proclaiming over-simplistic dogmatics, such as "We believe Jesus is God". Muslims will ask in return, "If Jesus is your God, will he ever forsake you?" to which the Christian might triumphantly proclaim "Never! He has promised ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you’ (Hebrews 13:5)". The Muslim will then play his trump card: "Well, it is just as well that your god Jesus will not forsake you. Unfortunately his God forsook him: ‘My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?’ (Matthew 27:46). You pray to your god Jesus, but he prayed to his God and not very successfully. How can you expect us to believe in him?" This is what happens when Christians are not careful in witness with Muslims or make bold statements that sound convincing purely because of the ease with which they can be emphatically stated, but are not entirely true. Jesus is the Son of God, a title which immediately implies a limitation upon him. The heart of what the Bible teaches about

! 240

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Jesus is this, namely that while the eternal Son is a divine personality in a Triune Being, he nevertheless is subject to the Father’s authority and so, when on earth, could easily assume in human form a servant-master relationship. Son-to-Father simply became expressed as Man-to-God. In this unique person men can come to know God face-toface for he who has seen the Son has seen the Father also (John 14:9). Yet likewise we see in Jesus a man like ourselves, able to assume our position and eventually bring us to eternal glory as the sons and daughters of God just as he is by nature the eternal Son of God. The more one understands this, the greater God’s glory in Christ is revealed. We need to focus on this glorious truth in our witness to Muslims: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19).

3.4 The Unique Sinlessness of Jesus Muslim: In what way was Jesus different to all the other messengers of Allah? They were all true to their task and taught their people only what Allah commanded them to say. The Qur’an does not distinguish between Jesus and the other prophets. One of the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith is the unique sinlessness of Jesus Christ. Being the eternal Son of God he had no blemishes, committed no sins, and maintained the perfect standard of divine righteousness in all he said and did. Had he been a sinner like all other men (prophets included), he could not have redeemed us from our iniquities. Very interestingly, and perhaps unintentionally, Islam’s original sources confirm this uniqueness. It is a crucial point in our witness to Jesus as the Son of God.

The Blamelessness of Jesus in the Qur’an and Hadith The virgin-birth of Jesus is confirmed in the Qur’an in two narratives (Surahs 3:41-48, 19:16-34). According to the second passage, when Mary his mother was first told of her conception by the angel whom God had sent to her, she expressed surprise at the vision. The angel answered her: I am only a messenger of your Lord (announcing) the gift of a holy son. Surah 19:19 The word used for "holy" in this verse is zakiyya, a word with the root meaning "purity" (as in zak‘at, the "pure" Muslim charity). In the particular form of the word used here the meaning is blameless and it is used in the same context in the only other place where it appears in the Qur’an. The book has a story about Moses and a journey he took with a young companion said in Islamic tradition to have been Al-Khidr – "the Green

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !241

One" – a mysterious figure believed to appear to prophets and Sufi masters at various times. When Al-Khidr suddenly slew a young man without apparent reason Moses exclaimed: Have you slain an innocent person who had not slain another? Surah 18:74 The companion told him to be silent about things he knew nothing about. Once again the word used for "innocent" is zakiyyah. In this passage it means someone blameless of any crime deserving death but in the case of Jesus it is a general description of his whole personality and character. It can only mean sinless and it makes Jesus the only messenger of God in the Qur’an to be expressly so described. As we have seen earlier in this book the Qur’an confirms the Biblical teaching that all the other prophets had sins and failings of their own. The Qur’anic teaching about the unique sinlessness of Jesus is supported by a remarkable tradition in one of the major works of Islamic tradition literature. It reads: The Prophet said, "No child is born but that, Satan touches it when it is born whereupon it starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her son". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 54). In this statement Muhammad clearly distinguished Jesus from all other human beings, prophets included, in being affected by Satan’s touch from the moment of his birth. It is important to know these passages from the Qur’an and Hadith as they help Christians to witness effectively to Muslims of the unique perfection of their Savior's character.

The Sinless Perfection of Jesus in the Bible There are numerous passages in the Christian Bible which testify to the perfect sinlessness of Jesus but it is enough to know the most emphatic and prominent statements to this effect. The first is: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 The New Testament often contrasts the perfect holiness of Jesus with our sinfulness, supplementing it with the wondrous truth that he took the consequences of our wickedness on himself so that we might share his righteousness. It is the essence and heart of the Christian Gospel, contrasting with Islam’s teaching that sin does not necessarily alienate man from God and make the intervention of a Savior necessary. Another text which brings out this principle very plainly is:

! 242

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. 1 Peter 2:24 There are two other passages in the New Testament which state emphatically that Jesus had no sin. Each one confirms the uniqueness of his holy personality in contrast with the rest of mankind, no one excepted. The two verses are: For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 1 John 3:5 Islam has made many attempts to undermine the uniqueness of Jesus, in particular its teachings that Muhammad was also a sinless prophet and that he performed many miracles. Neither of these has any foundation in the Qur’an (in fact they are totally contrary to Qur’anic teaching – Surahs 47:19, 17:90-93), but they have become popular because of the Muslim desire to try and prove that Muhammad was at least the equal of Jesus Christ. In fact the announcement to Mary that she was to have a blameless son must be considered in its context. She had conceived a child without male intervention. Why? The angel’s answer to her is effectively this: "You have experienced a unique conception because there is something very unique about him. He is the holy Son of God and, being eternal and without blemish, it is not possible that he could have been procreated in the normal manner". The Christian faith gives a very clear explanation of both the virginbirth and the perfect sinlessness of Jesus. Islam, with its determination to reduce Jesus to the level of common prophethood (if I may use the expression to emphasize the contrast), can offer no such explanation other than to say it was simply an expression of the will and power of Allah.

3.5 Old Testament Prophecies of his Deity Muslim: Abraham, Moses and David were all great prophets and no different to Jesus. To this day the Jews like us cannot accept the idea that God has a Son or that a man can also be God. What proof do you have for this? Contrary to what Muslims suppose, there are numerous evidences that the prophets prior to Jesus knew that a great Messiah was coming and that he would be far greater than all the messengers of God before him.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !243

Jesus and the Prophets Before Him In his own teaching Jesus Christ spoke of many of the leading patriarchs and prophets before him and confirmed that they all foresaw his coming and knew he would be greater than them. 1. Abraham who Foresaw the Day of Jesus When Jesus was debating one day with the Jewish leaders and Pharisees they made much of the fact that they were descended from the great patriarch Abraham and that he was their father (John 8:33,39). When Jesus stated that if anyone kept his word he would never see death, they responded: Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be? John 8:53 This passage is very important in the context of Muslim evangelism. The Muslims likewise believe Jesus was no greater than the other prophets but the Jews, from his own teaching, certainly got the impression that he was claiming to be superior to them all. How did Jesus respond? He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day, he saw it and was glad ... Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. John 8:56,58 Jesus made it plain that he was far greater than Abraham. The patriarch died because he was no different to any other man, but because Jesus is the eternal Son of God, he preexisted Abraham in an eternal present state which ultimately knows no past or future: "Before Abraham was, I AM!" (cf. Matthew 22:32 where Jesus said the same about God and Abraham). 2. Jacob and the Water of Eternal Life Jacob was another prophet who was held in great esteem, especially by the Samaritans who regarded him as their great patriarch. Jacob’s well was just outside the city of Sychar in Samaria and this perennial source of water in the desert was regarded as Jacob’s great legacy to them. When Jesus one day told a Samaritan woman at the well that he could give her living water, she asked him: Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle? John 4:12

! 244

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

As the Jews had asked "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" so this Samaritan asked "Are you greater than our father Jacob?" In each case the question focused on the great patriarch of their people. Again Jesus confirmed that he was purely because, being the eternal Son of God, he could give her living water from which she would never thirst, a well which would spring up within her to eternal life (John 4:14). 3. Moses who Wrote of Jesus On another occasion we read that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he called God his own Father, making himself equal with God (John 5:18). They had set their hope on Moses, the great lawgiver, and declared that they knew that God had spoken to Moses, but as for this man Jesus they proclaimed they had no idea where he came from (John 9:29). After a discourse in which Jesus again claimed that he was the eternal Son of God and that no one honored the Father unless he likewise honored the Son, he concluded with these words: If you believed Moses you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? John 5:46-47 Once again Jesus claimed to be superior to Moses in a context where he contrasted his divine power and character with the limited power of the prophet who had preceded him. As Abraham had foreseen his day, so Moses had written of him. Once again the focus fell on a great Messianic figurehead to come. 4. David who Called Jesus his Lord One last prophet needs to be mentioned. In another argument with the Jews Jesus, having answered all their questions, challenged them to identify the coming Messiah – whose son was he? They responded "the son of David" to which he replied: How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I put your enemies under your feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son? Matthew 22:43-45 Jesus, in his revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos, gave the answer: "I am the root and the offspring of David" (Revelation 22:16). He was indeed the son of David by direct descent from him but, because he is also the eternal son of God, he was David’s root and his Lord. Thus he was also greater than David. All these passages help to show how, in the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, the deity of Jesus was foreseen and honored. Abraham had rejoiced that he was to see his day, Moses had written of him, and David had called him his Lord. All these great men

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !245

had turned solely to Jesus as the great Messiah to come, one who had pre-existed them all, who alone could give the water of eternal life, and who likewise was their Lord and Savior. Use these great themes in answering any Muslim argument that Jesus was no more than a prophet like those who had preceded him.

3.6 "Flesh and Blood have not Revealed This" Muslim: Show me one place where Jesus said "I am God" and I will believe it. Prove to me that Jesus was the Son of God and I will accept it. All your arguments thusfar have failed to convince me. Why can you not prove this to my satisfaction? I have quoted from an actual conversation with a Muslim in Durban, South Africa, many years ago. Christians who have worked in Muslim evangelism have often been frustrated and sometimes confused at the inability of Muslims to see the light even when it shines right before their eyes. I recall another incident where two of us were in a Muslim home with about seven Muslims, engrossed in a two-hour conversation on the subject of whether Jesus was the Son of God or not. I gave every proof I knew and, when we reached our car just as we were leaving, one of the young Muslim men said to me "You know I have to agree with you. It seems Jesus really did believe and preach that he was the Son of God". I was encouraged by this testimony, only for him to add "But if he did, I think he was wrong". You just cannot win sometimes!

Perceiving that Jesus is the Son of God Numerous Christians, brought up on a diet of Christian teaching through Sunday Schools and other Bible-training methods, freely believe that Jesus is the Son of God without further ado – and often without knowing why they believe it. It seems that what children are taught they easily accept. Get into conversation with a Muslim, however, who may present some of the cutting arguments we have considered against the deity of Jesus, and the Christian may soon find he cannot justify or explain what he really believes and why. For Muslims, brought up on the teachings that God has no partner, that Jesus being a man could not be the Son of God, and that the Trinity makes no sense, turning around and believing in Jesus as the second person of a Triune Being takes some doing. I learnt many years ago that you simply cannot hope to persuade Muslims to believe in the Gospel by human reasoning alone. A divinely-inspired insight is necessary and I replied as such to the Muslim who posed the above questions to me. I turned to the following question Jesus put to his disciples:

! 246

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Who do men say that the Son of man is? Matthew 16:13 Jesus had been with his disciples for some time, teaching the masses, healing diseases and infirmities, and doing many mighty works among them. They answered that the people believed he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. The common impression was that he was a prophet – which one, they were not sure, but one of the prophets nonetheless. After all he looked very little different to the others – a man without wealth proclaiming the Word of God and proving it with attendant signs like Moses, Elijah and Elisha before him. When Jesus asked them, however, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter exclaimed "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). What he was in effect saying is "the people say you are a prophet but I say you are more, you are the Son of God". Why did he say this? Had he, because of his closer association with Jesus, seen and heard things to guide him more perceptively to the truth? The answer of Jesus to Peter is very significant: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17 No, Peter had not worked it out for himself. God the Father had revealed to him who Jesus really was. We must never forget that we are only witnesses to God’s truth in Muslim evangelism and that the work of enlightenment and conversion belongs to the Holy Spirit. So I told the Muslim enquirer that I could not prove that Jesus was the Son of God if he was determined not to believe this anyway. Only if he had an open mind which God could inspire would he see this truth.

The Gospel – God’s Revelation of Himself Nonetheless, as Christians, we must do our part and testify to the truth. The Bible clearly states that faith only comes through hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and we need to proclaim it and make a defence of it whenever called upon to do so. On this subject the question is not: "How can God become man or be contained within flesh and blood?" Once we admit that anything is possible to God the relevant question becomes "What has God revealed about himself?" The question, again, is not whether God can be confined in human form, it is purely whether humanity can bear the divine image. When he was on earth Jesus Christ manifested every one of God’s perfect attributes to the full. That is why he said "He who sees me sees him who sent me" (John 12:45). In no way was God’s divine character blurred while Jesus walked among men. On the contrary the fulness of God’s love, kindness, grace and forgiveness were only finally

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !247

revealed when his Son Jesus laid down his life so that we might be forgiven and live for ever. The Qur’an, speaking of the occasion when the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce to her the conception of a son without male intervention, says: Then we sent to her our spirit which appeared to her as a man in all respects. Surah 19:17 The Qur’an itself freely admits that God sends his angels, who are spirit in form (ruh), in the exact likeness of human appearance. Why then cannot the Son of God, who is likewise spirit in form, not take actual human form? There is no reasonable argument against the possibility. In another place the Qur’an says: Say, "If there were, settled on earth, angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should certainly have sent them down from the heavens an angel for an apostle". Surah 17:95 If, therefore, God would send an angelic messenger to angels on earth, would he not, if he wished personally to live among his people and redeem them from their sins, have likewise chosen to take the form of a human messenger? After all the Bible says that when God first created us he declared "Let us make man in our own image" (Genesis 1:26). If so, it must be obvious that the same human form can bear the image of God. Jesus is indeed the Son of God. We must never be reserved about this great eternal truth. On the contrary we must set it forth before the Muslim world as effectively as we can – and pray that God’s Holy Spirit will give the inner light to perceive it.

! 248

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Chapter Four

The Crucifixion and the Atonement The Historical and Spiritual Issues

4.1 The Consequences of Man’s Fallen Nature Muslim: No one can bear the sins of another. Every man is accountable for his own life. You have to make an effort to obey the laws of Allah and trust in his mercy to forgive your failures. Sins are bad deeds that must be cancelled out by good deeds. One of the greatest differences between Islam and Christianity is the concept each has of sin and the effect it has on a man’s relationship with God. According to the New Testament, the sin of Adam was not just an offense against God’s holy laws but an act of defiance which set the whole human race in opposition to God (Romans 3:9-18), leaving all men by nature spiritually dead in their transgressions and iniquities and bound to follow the devil as sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2). Islam, however, teaches that men are neutral beings, capable of doing good or evil as they choose. While the Qur’an regularly laments the instinctive tendency of man to turn away from God and to be ungrateful to him, preferring rather to follow indulgent passions (Surah 100:6-8), it does not regard the human failure to be perfectly obedient to God as a devastating chasm, separating God and man unless and until God should intervene and bring about a work of redemption as the Bible says he has done through the crucifixion, death and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ.

Why the Atonement is Necessary The ultimate question is not whether man is by nature as bad as the Bible makes him out to be, with a heart that is "desperately corrupt, deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9), but whether God is as good as the Bible declares him to be. According to Islam Allah is the Lord of the Universe whose attributes, such as righteousness, mercy and justice, are no more than that – just attributes. The Bible teaches, however, that God is, within himself, holy and righteous and that man, in breaking his holy laws, falls short of his absolutely holy character (Romans 3:23). How does one bring this across to a Muslim when he argues that Christianity has too pessimistic a view of human nature and that God does not need to save anyone, forgiving whomever he pleases as he chooses? One of the most effective ways is not to try to prove the doctrine of atonement but just to compare two men – Adam and Jesus, beginning with this passage:

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !249

For as by a man came death, by a man also has come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 All Muslims accept that Adam and Eve were chased out of the Garden of Eden when they sinned. The consequence of their disobedience was not simply a bad deed that could have been cancelled out by a good one, nor was it simply a matter of being forgiven by God. They were never let back into the Garden, nor has any member of the human race which has descended from them. Muslims in fact believe that the Garden was in heaven itself because its name in the Qur’an, Jannatu’l ‘Adn, is also a name for heaven (Surah 9:72). In discussion with Muslims I have found they will freely agree that Adam and Eve would not have died had they stayed in the Garden and that it was only on this decaying earth to which they were sent down that death became an inevitable destiny. Muslims, therefore, should be able to see that the first sin of Adam and Eve had disastrous and ruinous consequences. I have often asked them – if Adam and Eve were forgiven, why were they not allowed back into the Garden? Why were they and all their offspring left to die on this earth? There is no answer in Islam. Yet Muslims freely believe that Jesus was taken up to heaven and is the only man alive in heaven who has never died. How did he get in there when all other men born on earth – from Adam to Muhammad and beyond – have come to nothing? It is easy from there to point out that Jesus taught he would go to heaven because he came from there in the first place. He was not just an ordinary human being and his unique birth proves this. As Jesus said: No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. John 3:13 I came from the Father and have come into the world; again I am leaving the world and going to the Father. John 16:28 Muslims profess to prize logic, so use it with them. If we return to dust because we came from it, is it not logical to believe that Jesus went to heaven because he, too, came from there? I have found it very useful to go on to show that Jesus came down the first time to become like us, ordinary human beings, "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3) to die as we do and to redeem us from our sins. He will come down from heaven the second time to make us like himself, in all his resplendent glory, so that we can live forever in the kingdom of heaven where he is. Just as he, when seen as he really is, could shine with all the glory of perfection, his face shining like the sun (Matthew 17:2), so we too will "shine like the sun" in the kingdom of our Father because of our faith in him and relationship with God through him (Matthew 13:43). If Christianity indeed has

! 250

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

the most pessimistic view of human nature as it is – that it cannot redeem or save itself by any good work – then it also has the most optimistic view of what it can become! The only way back into the Garden from which Adam and all his offspring were dismissed is through Jesus who will return from heaven to take all his followers back there with him. Without his atoning work there is no other way anyone will ever get there.

The Fall of Adam in the Qur’an It is important to emphasize this by pointing out that the Qur’an supports the Bible in teaching that Adam’s transgression was not just a mistake or misdemeanor, or that he simply forgot God’s command not to eat of the forbidden fruit (as Muslims often argue), but that he fell from his high estate and was driven out from the Garden: But the Devil made them slip from it and caused them to depart from the state in which they were. And We said: Fall down from here, some enemies to the others. And on the earth there will be a dwelling and provision for a time. Surah 2:36 The key word here is ahbituu which comes from the root word habt meaning to go down an incline or to descend from a high place to a low one. "Fall down!" was the order, literally "Get out of here!". The consequences were also to be profound – enmity between men and an abode on the earth alone. It is very important to emphasize the fact that Adam and Eve were never allowed back into the Garden. Death was the ultimate consequence of their sin – hence the need of a Savior, Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead to give us the hope of eternal life. In passing it is also important to point out to Muslims who try to minimize Adam’s offense by saying he "forgot" the Lord’s command that, not only is it highly unlikely that he would forget the only negative command God gave him (Surah 7:19), but that the Shaitaan, the Devil, actually reminded Adam of God’s command when tempting him to sin: Your Lord has only forbidden you this tree lest you become like the angels or those who live forever. Surah 7:20 Adam’s sin was an act of defiance against God. The tree stood in the middle of the Garden as a symbol of God’s authority over man and, when he ate of it, Adam defied that authority and plunged the human race into a state of perpetual rebellion against God. Only Jesus Christ can redeem us from this state. Muslims sometimes talk about the tomb they have prepared in the Masjid an-Nabi (the Prophet’s Mosque) in Madina, Arabia, where they say Jesus will be buried forty years

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !251

after his return to earth. I have pointed out that I have already visited two tombs of Jesus in Jerusalem, one in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the old city and the other in the garden just below Golgotha where Jesus was crucified. It is remarkable, I have concluded, that this man has three tombs but fills none of them and never will! They are all totally empty. He dwells in everlasting life in heaven above, never to die again. Jesus’ life began uniquely, being born of a virgin woman because he came from heaven, and ended uniquely, being taken up again to heaven after his resurrection from the dead. Another point of emphasis here I have found useful is to point out to Muslims that Jesus was alive in heavenly glory before Muhammad was ever born, remained so throughout their Prophet’s life, and has remained alive in the same glory for fourteen centuries since Muhammad died and was buried in Arabian soil.

4.2 Do Christians Enjoy a License to Sin? Muslim: If Christ died for all your sins, past, present and future, then you can sin freely. Is this not why the Western world today is so corrupt? You just have to ask for forgiveness and you have it! We Muslims will never believe this – it is too easy. This is one of the commonest arguments Christians will encounter when witnessing to Muslims. To them the favor of God has to be earned through a succession of good works and religious devotions. They cannot understand how salvation can be a gift or how forgiveness of all sins can be received simply by faith in Jesus.

Paul’s Teaching in Romans 6 This subject is dealt with very deliberately by the Apostle Paul in the sixth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The argument he anticipates and answers in the first part of the chapter is slightly different to the general Muslim one, namely: "Surely, if you are forgiven purely by grace, you should sin as much as you can so that God’s grace may abound" (v.1). The second part, however, includes the classic Muslim objection: "Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Romans 6:15). His answers go right to the core of what the Christian Gospel is and whenever Muslims raise this subject Christians have a real opportunity to witness to them of the effects of God’s saving grace in Christ.   1. Being Dead to Sin and Alive to God in Christ

! 252

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

The first response of the Apostle is to ask how believers can even contemplate the possibility of living in sin with a free conscience when the effect of their faith in Jesus is to share in his death and its victory over all the forces of darkness: How can we who died to sin still live in it? Romans 6:2 The whole thrust of Paul’s argument is that those who put their faith in Jesus become united to him in his death and resurrection. He died to conquer both the guilt and power of sin and rose again to impart his life-giving power to all who choose to follow him. In turn they identify with his death to sin and become alive to God and the whole fulness of his righteousness. No one can receive the forgiveness of God in Christ unless his desire is to repent of his sins, forsake them, and be transformed into the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. The death he died he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:10-11   2. God’s Grace Delivers Believers from the Power of Sin Perhaps the most important point to emphasize here is the fact that Jesus Christ died, not only to free us from the guilt of sin but also from its power. Jesus once said that whoever commits sin becomes a slave to sin (John 8:34). So often in conversation with Muslims I have asked them, if sin is merely a choice a man makes, why they cannot simply say to God "I know you want us to follow the right path (Siratal-Mustaqim). So from this day I choose never to sin again". Invariably they have smiled bemusedly at the suggestion, freely admitting that no one can make such a decision for the rest of his life, let alone for a single day. Often they say "We do not even know sometimes when we are sinning. What often appears to be right in our eyes can be wrong before God". Many Muslims struggle with the painful awareness that the tendency to sin is a compelling force, an unfortunate reality about human nature. This where the effect of redemption comes into a Christian’s life: But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. Romans 6:17-18 Faith in Jesus not only brings us the forgiveness of our sins but also gives us the power to overcome them in our lives. As the Apostle Paul said in another epistle Jesus came not only to "redeem us from all iniquity" but also to "purify for himself a people who are

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !253

zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14). For many Muslims the prospect of an indwelling power to conquer sin is very attractive.   3. Being Filled with the Holy Spirit Anyone who commits his life to Christ simultaneously receives the Holy Spirit. This is the third person of the Trinity who does not take control of our lives (God is too gracious to do this) but who gives us a love for God’s commandments at the root of our being and, insofar as we submit to him, will deliver us from the powerful tendencies in our souls to pursue our own, sinful desires. I have found the following incident very useful when seeking to impress this fact on Muslims: When they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. John 19:33-34 John made much of this in the next verse, saying he had definitely seen it and recounted it so that his readers might believe. Believe what? Merely that it had happened? Not likely, especially as the word "believe" is loaded with meaning throughout his Gospel. He meant so that you might live by faith in Jesus. It was the two liquids which poured from Jesus’ side which impressed him. The blood symbolized the forgiveness of sins just as the shedding of blood of bulls, lambs and goats in times past at the Temple had been the means by which God had overlooked the sins of the people. The water, however, symbolized the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the rivers of new life which believers also receive. Water is a common symbol of divine power in the soul in this Gospel (John 4:14, 7:38). It should be obvious that this is a very useful illustration supporting Paul’s teaching in Romans 6. In conclusion it is also appropriate to challenge any Muslim who raises the argument that "if Jesus died for you, you can sin as you like" to quote from the Bible to prove exactly where he got this idea from. Alternatively you might gently suggest that, in expressing such a fallacy, the Muslim shows a painful ignorance of what the Bible really teaches and needs a brief explanation of what salvation is actually all about.

4.3 The Young Ruler and the Commandments Muslim: It is strange that you should say salvation comes through faith in Jesus. After all, Jesus himself taught that if you want to receive eternal life you must keep God’s commandments. This is precisely what Islam teaches about true religion as well.

! 254

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Many Muslims are familiar with the story of the rich young ruler who approached Jesus and asked him what he had to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). They argue that Jesus never taught atonement but, as in this statement, called on all men to observe the commandments of God if they were to enter his kingdom. How does one answer this?

No One is Good but God Alone At times Muslims will also argue that Jesus also denied, in his discussion with the young man, that he had any goodness within himself because he was just an ordinary human being like everyone else. When the ruler called him a "good teacher", Jesus responded: Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. Mark 10:17-18 Here is another excellent opportunity to turn an objection into an opportunity for witness, this time to the deity of Christ. He never denied that he was good, on the contrary he called himself the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11), echoing the statement of God himself at an earlier time "I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep" (Ezekiel 34:15). There can be very little doubt that Jesus had this very statement in mind when he assumed the title Good Shepherd. What he was in fact saying was "Why do you call me good?". He was not denying goodness. The young ruler had, in the Hebrew language, called him a good rabbi (as in John 1:38). There were many such rabbis and teachers of the law in Israel at the time and, if the young man thought he was no more than any of them, he could well be asked why he had called this one "good" when God alone is good in an eternal sense. The response of Jesus is a challenge to him to declare whether he regarded Jesus as just one of the many teachers who gave their interpretations of religion as they derived them from their religious studies, or whether he saw in Jesus a divine uniqueness by which he would be able, with divine authority, to disclose the secret of eternal life. This comes out even more when one looks at the rest of the discussion between the two men.

If you Would be Perfect, Follow Me When Jesus told the young man that he could enter life by keeping the commandments, he asked "Which?". Jesus then mentioned five of them, all of which dealt with a man’s relationship with his fellow man, but excluding the tenth "You shall not covet". The

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !255

young ruler responded that he had kept all of them since his youth – what did he still lack? Jesus, knowing his love of riches and covetous spirit, then challenged him: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Matthew 19:21 At this he went away sorrowful, unable to part with his great possessions. We see in this story, not that anyone can enter life simply by keeping the ten commandments, but rather that no one can do so perfectly as they must be kept if anyone wishes to enter life by them. God is perfect and his laws must accordingly be kept perfectly if they are to be kept at all in the true sense of the word. As another verse says: For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. James 2:10 What Jesus was telling the young man, who thought he had kept all of God’s laws from his childhood, was that he needed to keep every law of God always, perfectly, continually. That is why Jesus told him that, if he would indeed be perfect, he needed to sell all his possessions and to renounce his materialistic spirit. Relative piety is unacceptable to a "holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16). Instead, therefore, of finding eternal life through keeping God’s commandments the young man discovered that those laws could only convict him of sin. As the Apostle Paul said: The very commandment which promised life proved death to me. Romans 7:10 Jesus gave the young man a clear hint as to where salvation really lies when he said "If you would be prefect, ... follow me". It is only in the atoning work of the Christ that perfection and salvation can ultimately be found. Far from being a denial of the deity of Jesus and the atonement this passage is a very definite affirmation of it.

Other Proofs of the Atonement The charge that Jesus never taught atonement can be met on other grounds as well. In a number of his statements he made it plain that he had come to earth expressly to save us from our sins and you will do well to quote them in conversation with Muslims on this subject: The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Matthew 20:28 The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. John 6:51

! 256

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. John 10:11 Perhaps the most obvious incident in Jesus’ life that clearly points to the atonement as God’s way of salvation is the Last Supper which he had with his disciples the last night he was with them just before his arrest, trial and crucifixion. Here he took bread, broke it and gave it to them saying "Take, eat, this is my body". Then he took the cup of wine and gave it to them to drink, saying "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28). It is virtually impossible to understand how anyone can suggest that Jesus never taught atonement in the face of such an event. It was the very thing he commended to his disciples on the last occasion he was with them before his death. Christians have, in response to Muslim objections such as those surrounding the story of the rich young ruler, tremendous opportunities to share the whole message of the Gospel with them at the same time as refuting their arguments.

4.4 The Substitution Theory in the Qur’an Muslim: God would never have stood by watching while his enemies crucified his Son. To us Jesus was only a great prophet, yet Allah delivered him from the Jews who wanted to kill him. He was saved from the cross while another was crucified instead. Only one verse in the whole Qur’an deals with the subject of Jesus’ crucifixion. The event is strongly denied as a calumny of the Jews against him. Their intention to kill him is not discounted, but Allah is said to have honoured his prophet by saving him from their hands while a bystander, whose appearance Allah changed so that he might look like Jesus, was crucified instead. There is no mention of the relevance of the event to the Christian faith, a surprising oversight considering the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus laid down his life willingly for the salvation of all men and that this was the expresspurpose for the appearance of the Son of God in human form. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus there would have been no Christianity and the fact that it is central to our faith makes the omission of any reference to its Christian context in the Qur’an all the more remarkable. The verse is: They said: "We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, messenger of Allah; but they did not kill him, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them. Those who dispute about this are full of doubts, they have no certain knowledge but follow only conjecture. Assuredly they killed him not, but Allah raised him to himself. And Allah is the Mighty, the Wise. Surah 4:157

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !257

Implications of the Substitution Theory The very interesting little expression, wa laakin shubbiha lahum – "but so it was made to appear to them", has led the Muslim world to believe that the physical features of another person were changed to look like those of Jesus and that he was substituted by God in the prophet’s place. Jesus, instead, was taken up to heaven where he remains alive until he will return to earth shortly before the end of time. The Qur’an comes tantalizingly close to admitting the Christian position – it accepts that the Jews came to arrest Jesus, that they intended to crucify him, that someone was indeed crucified, that to all intents and purposes the victim looked like Jesus, and that all who stood at the foot of the cross were persuaded that it really was him. In truth the expression "so it was made to appear to them" is somewhat vague and has led to some disputes in the Muslim world over what really happened to Jesus, but there remains a general consensus that someone else was transfigured to look like him and was accordingly crucified in his place. In addition the Qur’an offers another striking coincidence – it makes the life of Jesus on earth end the same day that the Bible says it did. This ironically gives the substitution theory its only possible credibility – it wisely concludes Jesus’ natural life the same day history draws it to a close. Yet, as we shall see, the theory has very little substance and can be ruthlessly challenged on many grounds. The important thing here is to answer Muslim denials of the crucifixion by first establishing the facts we hold in common. The only point in dispute is this – was it actually Jesus who was crucified (as the Bible teaches) or was it someone else (as the Qur’an teaches)? Once you have leveled the playing-field it becomes much easier to focus on this one supreme issue.

A Critical Analysis of the Theory Not only is the Qur’anic teaching on what happened that day embarrassingly vague but the Muslim interpretation of it, the substitution theory, is extremely vulnerable on moral grounds and does not withstand the acid test of critical analysis. The following points can effectively be raised in discussion with Muslims on this subject:   1. Why Should God have Victimized an Innocent Bystander? If it was God’s intention to save Jesus alive by raising him to heaven, why should anyone have been crucified at all? It makes no sense. The very act of misrepresenting one man as another is a form of impersonation and we cannot accept that the "holy God

! 258

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16) would ever have done such a thing. Some Muslims say it was Judas Iscariot who was crucified (to remove the charge that an innocent bystander was crucified) but there is no identification of the victim in the Qur’an. The fact is, whoever was crucified was innocent of whatever wrongdoing Jesus was supposed to have done to warrant his death. The choice of Judas is simply an expedient to justify what God is supposed to have done that day. The Bible, however, records very clearly what happened to Judas – when he saw that Jesus was going to be crucified, in great remorse he went out and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5. See also Acts 1:18).   2. Did God not Consider Jesus’ Family and Disciples? The second obvious objection to the Muslim theory is the effect the crucifixion would have had on those who were gathered around the cross. His mother Mary, her sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and two of his closest disciples Mary Magdalene and John the son of Zebedee, were "standing by the cross of Jesus" (John 19:25). If the person crucified was made to look exactly like Jesus, surely they would all have presumed it really was him? Why did God put the people who were closest to Jesus through the agony of watching him die? Would God have allowed his mother, revered in Islam as Bibi Maryam and the only woman mentioned by name in the Qur’an (Surah 3:36, 19:16), to have endured such torment purely because of an illusion of his own making? It is useful, at this point, to add that Jesus actually addressed Mary and John from the cross: When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" John 19:26-27 This is only one of seven sayings of Jesus from the cross and it clearly shows that the person crucified not only looked like Jesus but also talked as if it was him. Only Jesus himself could have shown such compassion for his mother. Anyone else would have spent his time crying from the cross that he had been crucified by mistake. To get to the truth Muslims only have to acknowledge one thing – that it was indeed Jesus himself who was crucified!   3. Was Christianity Founded on a Hoax of God’s Making? The third objection to the Muslim theory is that, if the man crucified was made to look like Jesus, can you blame his disciples for actually thinking it was him? They went out and preached Christ crucified, being willing to lay down their lives for the Gospel message that Jesus died to save the world from its sinfulness. Did they found the whole

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !259

Christian faith on a hoax, an illusion of which God himself was the deliberate author? The substitution theory makes God out to be the source of the greatest deception in religious history. The irony is that it is this theory which is perhaps the greatest of all historical delusions, one which has bound hundreds of millions of Muslims for fourteen centuries in unbelief. Under close analysis it is found to be riddled with improbabilities. It is important in witness to Muslims to emphasize that the Bible emphatically teaches that Jesus was crucified, that he died on the cross, and that he was raised from the dead on the third day. These two declarations, proclaimed by an angel to some of Jesus’ female disciples the day of his resurrection and by the Apostle Peter to thousands of Jewish bystanders, set forth these great truths very concisely: I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has risen, as he said. Come see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead.Matthew 28:5-7 This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. Acts 2:23-24 God is glorified in the Christian Gospel. The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, his only Son, is the greatest evidence of his love for us. It is the door to eternal life. It is the source of our complete forgiveness and ultimate redemption. The Muslim theory that someone else was crucified in Jesus’ place, on the contrary, is meaningless. The event served no apparent purpose other than to victimise an innocent man, traumatise the followers of Jesus, and result in the formation of a religion based on a fallacy – all of Allah’s own scheming and devising. Highly unlikely indeed!

4.5 The Swooning Theory of Muslim Apologists Muslim: It can be shown from the Bible that, even if Jesus was put on a cross, he did not die on it, but was taken down alive though in a swoon. Afterwards he recovered and appeared to many, hence the illusion that he had been raised from the dead. The untenable nature of the substitution theory and its obvious weaknesses has led some Muslim writers to attack the Biblical records of Jesus’ crucifixion instead, attempting to prove what has become known as the alternative swooning theory. This is an old heresy, one which the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam first adopted through the teaching of its prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who lived in India in the nineteenth century. It is important to know that, in 1974, followers of the Ahmadiyya Movement were declared non-Muslims in Pakistan. Their theory, however, has occasionally been

! 260

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

taken over by mainstream Muslim authors as a convenient means of assaulting the Christian Gospel.

Typical Evidences for the Ahmadiyya Theory Conveniently ignoring every statement in the Gospels to the effect that Jesus died on the cross, these writers fasten on to certain passages, distort them out of context, and then re-interpret them to suggest that Jesus survived the cross. Let us consider a few prominent examples.   1. Jesus Prayed that God would Save him from Death In the Garden of Gethsemane, shortly before being arrested, Jesus prayed "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will" (Matthew 28:39) and in response an angel was sent to him to strengthen him (Luke 22:43). It is argued that Jesus was reluctant to die and that the angel was sent to him to comfort him that he would be saved from death. It is hard to see how Jesus could have been comforted by the knowledge that he would endure the horrors of the crucifixion right to the point of death itself and be saved only because, to all intents and purposes, he appeared to be dead when taken down from the cross. Here even the substitution theory makes more sense! Surely, if God had wished to save him from death, he would have delivered him completely from it? Why save him only after an unnecessary, tragic delay? In any event Jesus could have fled that night from Jerusalem and avoided arrest for he knew exactly what Judas Iscariot was doing in preparing his arrest (John 18:4). Jesus recoiled at the prospect of separation from his Father as he took God’s wrath against our sins on himself, a holy fear that made him sweat blood (Luke 22:44). The very prospect of being forsaken of his Father and left in the realm of sin and its consequences made Jesus momentarily withdraw in horror, yet he deferred to his Father’s will. The strength the angel gave him was to endure this ordeal, unparalleled in human history. The glorious resurrection of Jesus from the dead three days later was a much greater deliverance.   2. The Centurion Did not Ensure that Jesus was Dead Much is made of the fact that when the Roman soldiers came to break the legs of the three men crucified that day, they left Jesus alone when they saw he was already dead (John 19:33). It is argued that they relied purely on a perception and made no attempt to

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !261

ensure that Jesus had actually died. On the contrary, the soldiers would never have left such a thing to chance or their impressions. Consider this passage: And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Mark 15:44-45 The Roman governor was quite happy to accept the centurion’s confirmation because it was fatal for a Roman soldier to make a mistake in such a situation. When the Apostle Peter escaped from prison some time later in the same city, the sentries appointed to guard him were summarily executed (Acts 12:19). When a jailer supposed that Paul and Silas had also escaped from prison, "he drew his sword and was about to kill himself" (Acts 16:27). Death was the penalty for allowing prisoners to escape – what could the centurion expect if he allowed a condemned man to escape because of some careless observations? No one but he could have been such a reliable witness to Jesus’ death on the cross! In fact one of the soldiers thrust a sword right into Jesus’ side (John 19:34) to make totally sure. This act alone would have been sufficient to kill him.   3. The Jews Doubted that Jesus was Dead Another typical argument is that the Jewish leaders were concerned that Jesus was still alive after being brought down from the cross and went to Pilate to have his tomb properly sealed to ensure that he could not escape. It is based on their statement to the governor: Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, "After three days I will rise again". Matthew 27:63 Once again the argument conveniently ignores clear statements in the context of the incident which show that, far from thinking Jesus might recover his health, the Jews were concerned that Jesus’ disciples might come and steal his body away and that they might proclaim that he had risen from the dead (Matthew 27:64). There are two points that make it obvious what they really feared. Firstly they spoke of what Jesus had said while he was "still alive", implying that they were clearly satisfied he was now dead. Secondly they acted on a prophecy Jesus had often made, namely that after he was killed, he would rise on the third day (Luke 9:22). The swooning theory has no substance whatsoever. It relies on reading between the lines (which some Muslim proponents actually admit) rather than a careful study of the lines themselves. The theory serves only one purpose – to show how embarrassing the

! 262

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

substitution theory is to many Muslims and to what lengths they will go to attack the Biblical records instead.

4.6 What Really was the Sign of Jonah? Muslim: Jesus spoke of the Sign of Jonah as the only sign he was prepared to give the Jews. Yet it is obvious that Jonah did not die in the stomach of the fish and Jesus did not spend three days and three nights in the tomb as he said he would. Muslims fasten on to the Sign of Jonah to further the swooning theory and to challenge the parallel Jesus brought between the time Jonah spent in the depths of the ocean and the time he would spend buried in the earth. Let us consider the two arguments they produce, especially as they are quite commonly advanced in the Muslim world.

Was Jesus Dead or Alive in the Tomb? No one doubts that Jonah was alive throughout his ordeal, nor has it ever been suggested that he rose from the dead when he was released on dry land. If so, Muslims argue, Jesus also must have been in the tomb without dying until the stone was rolled away from it. Otherwise, how could Jesus use Jonah’s experience as a sign of his own resurrection from the dead? When one reads the whole statement of Jesus, however, it is obvious that the likeness was confined to the time-factor: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:40 It is quite clear that the likeness is in the time each would spend hidden from public view from which a reappearance was most unlikely, Jonah in a fish and Jesus in a tomb. The issue is the time-period of three days and three nights. It cannot be stretched to include the state each was in, namely to say "if Jonah was alive, then Jesus too must have been alive." This comes clear from another similar statement of Jesus where he again, in the context of his coming crucifixion, drew a comparison between his coming death and an Old Testament incident: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. John 3:14

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !263

Here the likeness is clearly confined to the state of being lifted up and impaled, the serpent on a pole and Jesus on a cross. The first had been publicly lifted for the healing of the Jews bitten by serpents, the second for the healing of the nations bound in sin. In this case, however, the serpent was a brass object. At no time had it ever been alive. It was dead when nailed to the pole and dead when it was taken down. If you apply the same Muslim logic here it means Jesus must have been dead before he was ever nailed to the cross! It is quite obvious that, in each case, the living state or otherwise of the objects compared to was not relevant to the point Jesus was making. The likeness was clearly confined to the actual point of similarity he mentioned – in Jonah’s case the time-period of three days and nights, and in the case of the brass serpent to the action of being lifted up.

The Three Days and Three Nights It is universally agreed among Christians (with a few exceptions) that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and that he rose from the dead early on the following Sunday morning. Muslims argue that, if that was indeed the case, the Sign of Jonah has no meaning because Jonah was three days and three nights in the stomach of the fish. Jesus was, quite obviously, only two nights (Friday and Saturday) in the tomb and hardly three days as well. The time-period of three days and nights is 72 hours, but Jesus could not have been more than 33 hours in the tomb (3pm Friday to 6am Sunday). What these Muslims fail to appreciate is that there is a major difference between Hebrew speech in the first century and English speech in the twentieth century. In those days Jews counted any part of a day as a whole day when calculating consecutive periods of time. Jesus was laid in the tomb of the Friday, lay in it throughout the Saturday, and only rose sometime before dawn on the Sunday. As the Sunday actually started at sunset the previous evening according to the Jewish calendar Jesus was in the tomb for a very definite period of three days according to Jewish reckoning. The question is why there were only two nights in between. One needs to understand the Hebrew colloquialisms of the time. The expression three days and three nights is the sort of expression we never use in the spoken English language today. Its meaning must therefore be sought in the context of its first-century Hebrew use. Today we will say "I’ll be away for two weeks" or for a "fortnight", never intending this to mean a precise period of fourteen days and fourteen nights. Yet the Bible often uses this figure of speech. Moses fasted for forty days and forty nights in the wilderness (Exodus 24:18) while Job’s friends sat with him for seven days and seven nights

! 264

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

during his illness (Job 2:13). No Jew would ever have spoken of "three days and two nights" or "seven days and six nights" even if this was the exact period he was describing. It was a general period of three days that Jesus was speaking of and, incidentally, which Jonah spent in the depth of the sea. A fine example of this is found in the Old Testament where it is said that Queen Esther commanded that no one should eat for "three days, night or day" (Esther 4:16) but on the third day, after only two nights, she went into the king’s chamber and the fast was ended. The expression three days and three nights was a Jewish colloquialism meaning any period of time covering three days. This is really obvious from how the Jews reacted to Jesus’ saying once he had been buried. When they said to Pilate that they remembered how Jesus had said he would rise again after three days, they requested him to secure the sepulcher until the third day (Matthew 27:64). It was after only one night, on the day after his crucifixion (Saturday), that they urged the governor to act immediately. In our speech today we would have taken Jesus’ statement that he would rise after three days to mean sometime on the fourth day. The Jews, however, knowing their own colloquialisms, took Jesus to mean he would rise on the third day, namely Sunday, after only two nights. This is why they were only concerned to have the tomb secured until the third day. They knew he did not mean he would be buried for an exact period of 72 hours but only for a portion of three days. The important thing is to interpret the saying in first-century terms and not according to our forms of speech today. When the disciples of Jesus boldly declared that Jesus had risen from the dead on the third day (Acts 10:40), no one ever attempted to counter this testimony by claiming they were contradicting Jesus’ statement that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. In conclusion it must be said that, when Muslims raise the subject of the Sign of Jonah, they create a wonderful opportunity to witness to them of precisely what it was – a symbol of Jesus’ crucifixion, death and resurrection from the dead three days later.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !265

Chapter Five

Muhammad in the Bible? Muslim Arguments from Biblical Texts

5.1 The Prophet Like Moses in Deuteronomy 18 Muslim: In the original Tawraat there were clear predictions of the coming of our holy Prophet. One of them survives and is found in Deuteronomy 18:18 where Moses clearly foretells the coming of another prophet who would be just like him. One of the great arguments raised by Muslims in discussion with Christians is their claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. The issue derives from a passage in the Qur’an which has led Muslim scholars, from the earliest days of Islam, to search for passages in both the Old and New Testaments to prove that their Prophet’s coming was indeed prophesied by the former prophets. Some of the books Muslims have written on this subject draw numerous passages from all over the Old Testament and one or two from the New but, in general conversation with Muslims, only two prominent examples are usually put forward and it is these that we will consider in this chapter. The Qur’anic verse is: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, will find him mentioned in the (books) with them, in the Tawraat and the Injil. Surah 7:157 In both cases Christians will find that there can be no doubt that the particular passages refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit respectively.

Muslim Arguments on the Prophet "Like Unto" Moses The first of the prophecies they claim foretells the advent of their Prophet is found in the following passage where God addresses Moses: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. Deuteronomy 18:18 The first argument is that Muhammad must be the prophet foretold because he was like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were. As Christians claim the prophecy refers to Jesus Muslims argue further that they do not have to consider any other

! 266

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

prophets but only have to bring comparisons between Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. The arguments run generally like this: 1. Moses and Muhammad led Normal Lives in Every Way Their lives followed a perfectly normal course unlike Jesus where every feature of his life was unique or unusual. They both had a father and a mother whereas Jesus was born of a virgin-woman and had no human father. Both died normal deaths at the end of lives that went their full course whereas, according to the Bible, Jesus died tragically when he was only thirty-three. Moses and Muhammad both married but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life. So Muhammad must be the prophet who was to come like Moses. 2. Moses and Muhammad Became the Leaders of their People In the later years of their lives, after initially being rejected by the Jews and Arabs respectively, Moses and Muhammad became the political and religious leaders of their nations. They died as undisputed rulers whereas Jesus had only a few followers at the end of his life, having been rejected by the chief priests and the people. 3. Their Successors both Conquered the Land of Palestine Shortly after their deaths successors to both Moses and Muhammad led armies into the land of Palestine and conquered it. Joshua conquered the land of Canaan, as it was then known, and settled the Jews in what became the land of Israel while Umar, the second Caliph after Muhammad, conquered the same land for Islam and settled Muslim Arabs in it where they are to this day. Jesus, however, was driven out of Jerusalem and put to death by the Romans who continued to rule the land for centuries to come. Similar arguments are put forward to supposedly prove that it was Muhammad, and not Jesus, whose coming was foretold.

The Key Features of the Unique Prophet to Come The Muslim arguments hardly touch on the key issue. Moses was a unique prophet who had been commissioned to introduce a covenant between God and the people of Israel. The prophet who would be like him would obviously have to have certain distinguishing features that would make him like Moses in a way no other prophet was. Christians can argue like Muslims that Moses and Jesus both left Egypt to fulfill their ministries which Muhammad never did. "By faith he forsook Egypt" the Bible says of Moses (Hebrews 11:27), and again "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" it says of Jesus

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !267

(Matthew 2:15). What, however, were the unique features in Moses’ prophethood? Let us consider them. 1. Moses was the Mediator of a Covenant In the same passage as the prophecy we are reviewing God said to the people of Israel that he would indeed raise up for them a prophet like Moses, "just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly" when they had pleaded that God speak to them through a mediator only (Deuteronomy 18:16). Moses mediated a covenant between God and the people when, after the ten commandments and other laws had been delivered to them, he anointed the Book of the Law and the people with the sprinkled blood of calves and goats as well as the tabernacle and vessels used in worship, saying "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you" (Hebrews 9:20). 2. Moses Knew God Face-to-Face Moses had a unique relationship with God. For forty years unabated God spoke to him directly in a way he never did with any prophet who preceded or followed him. The Bible says: Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Exodus 33:11 The Qur’an confirms this unique relationship, saying "And to Moses Allah spoke directly" (Surah 4:164) in contrast with another verse where the Qur’an says "it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger" (Surah 42:51). We need, therefore, to look for a prophet who had a similar unique relationship. 3. Moses Performed Great Signs and Wonders For many years Moses performed many miracles, such as the many plagues he brought down on Egypt, the dividing of the Red Sea and the daily manna from heaven. No prophet could be said to be like Moses if he could not do the same. We have already seen that Muhammad performed no miracles during his life according to the Qur’an and the following charge against him by the pagan Arabs during the time of his own mission is very significant: Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses? Surah 28:48 Simply put, the argument is that if Muhammad was indeed the great prophet he claimed to be, why was he not like Moses in the key features of his prophethood?

! 268

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Muhammad mediated no covenant, did not know God face-to-face (the Qur’an, according to all Hadith records and Surah 2:97, was mediated to him solely through the Angel Jibril), and performed no miracles. So he cannot be the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. This verse, describing Moses’ ministry at the end of his life, emphasizes the uniqueness of his prophethood: And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land. Deuteronomy 34:10-11 It is clear from this passage that the prophet to come who would be like Moses would be identified at least by his close direct relationship with God and by many signs and wonders attending his ministry. That prophet could only be Jesus as we shall see in the next section.

5.2 Jesus – The Prophet Foretold by Moses Muslim: What evidences do you have for your claim that Jesus was the prophet foretold by Moses? He was a great prophet but his mission appears to have ended in failure after just a few years. He did not share the greatness of Moses and Muhammad. It is important, right at the start, to point out to Muslims that the Bible expressly applies the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 to Jesus on two occasions. The Apostle Peter, claiming that God had foretold the coming of Jesus through all the prophets, quoted the text as proof that Moses had done so (Acts 3:22). Stephen, the early Christian martyr, also appealed to the same text as proof that Moses was one of those who had "announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One", Jesus, whom the Jewish leaders had now betrayed and crucified (Acts 7:37). We will proceed to see how Jesus fulfilled the three unique features we have already considered.

The Mediator of the New Covenant Muslims occasionally argue that, according to Christian belief, Jesus was the Son of God and could not have been a prophet in the normal way. In reply there are numerous passages where Jesus called himself a prophet (e.g. Matthew 13:57) as well as the Son of God (John 10:36). Having taken human form to proclaim the Word of God just the previous prophets had done made him likewise a prophet in the true sense of the word. Let us now see how he was the prophet to come like Moses.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !269

1. Jesus was also the Mediator of a Covenant At the time of Jeremiah, many centuries after Moses’ time but long before the days of Jesus, God promised that he would make a new covenant between himself and his people. As the nation of Israel had consistently rejected his laws he regarded the original covenant made with Moses obsolete, but promised that he would now enter into a special relationship with his own people by forgiving their sins and writing his laws on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The New Testament declares that Jesus was the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 9:15). To ratify the first covenant we read: Moses took the blood and threw it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words". Exodus 24:8 As the first covenant had been mediated through Moses and ratified with blood it was only to be expected that the prophet to follow like Moses would do likewise. So, just before his death on the cross, Jesus said: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:25 2. Jesus also Knew God Face-to-Face Just as Moses knew God directly and communicated with him personally throughout his ministry, so Jesus could say "I know him, I come from him, and he sent me" (John 7:29). On many other occasions he made it clear that he had seen God face-to-face, such as in these words "Not that anyone has ever seen the Father except him who is from God – he has seen the Father" (John 6:46). The most telling comparison at this point is found in two passages which speak of the effect of the close relationship Moses and Jesus had with God. The first tells what happened when Moses spoke with God face-toface: Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. Exodus 34:29-30 When the image of the invisible God was directly revealed through Jesus as God spoke of him as his own Beloved Son, we read: And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. Matthew 17:2 No other prophet could claim such a distinction. No one else knew God face-to-face in such a way that his face shone as he communed with him. Certainly there are no

! 270

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

evidences anywhere in the Qur’an or any other Muslim records that Muhammad ever emulated the experience. Even the story of al-Mir’aj, his supposed ascension to heaven, do not state that his face ever shone in any way. 3. Jesus Likewise Performed Great Miracles There are numerous stories of great miracles which Jesus did during his life but once again a direct parallel with Moses will help to emphasize the likeness between them. Both of them had power to control the sea, a feat never emulated by any other prophet. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind. Exodus 14:21 Other prophets after Moses had power over rivers (Joshua 3:13, 2 Kings 2:14) but no one could emulate Moses’ great miracle of controlling the sea until Jesus stood over the Sea of Galilee one night and, during a raging storm, calmed it with just three words "Peace – be still" (Mark 4:39). His disciples exclaimed: What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him? Matthew 8:27 One of Moses’ greatest miracles was to feed the people of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai with bread known as manna which appeared on the ground every day. When the Jews saw Jesus feed five thousand people besides women and children from only five loaves of bread and two fishes so that there was enough left over to fill twelve baskets, they immediately recalled Moses’ prophecy. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world." John 6:14 When they saw the sign, they declared that Jesus was the prophet, the one foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18. There can be no doubt from all these evidences that Jesus is the prophet whose coming was prophesied by Moses and not Muhammad. The evidences relating to the unique features of his life, specifically named in Deuteronomy 34. 10-11 as the ones which would identify the coming prophet, prove conclusively that he was the one of whom God spoke to the people of Israel.

5.3 The Prophet From Among their Brethren Muslim: The promise was of a prophet to come from among the brethren of the Israelites. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, and their brethren were the Ishmaelites. Muhammad was descended from Ishmael and he is therefore the prophet.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !271

This is one of the favorite arguments of Muslims in trying to prove that the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 was Muhammad. They emphasize the words "from among their brethren", assuming that it is the "brethren" of the Israelites as a nation that are spoken of in the prophecy. A brief survey of the context of the passage shows quite conclusively that it was not the Ishmaelites who were in mind. â&#x20AC;¨

The Brethren of the Levites The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 is set in a context of a whole discourse where God gave Moses certain directions about the future conduct of the people of Israel once they reached the promised land,especially the Levites, the priestly tribe. A look at the first two verses of the chapter will reveal very clearly who God was speaking of when he said he would raise up for them a prophet from among their brethren. The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel ... They shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Deuteronomy 18:1-2 It is abundantly clear here that they means the Levites, and that their brethren means the other tribes of Israel. No honest method of interpretation can possibly yield any other conclusion. Therefore the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:18 must be: "I will raise up for them (the Levites) a prophet like you from among their brethren (the other eleven tribes of Israel)". Therefore the passage cannot refer to the Ishmaelites and the prophecy most certainly cannot apply to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. It is interesting to note that, throughout the Old Testament, the expression "their brethren" often occurs and in every case it refers to one of the tribes of Israel as distinct from the one actually mentioned. A typical example is found in the following verse where there can be no doubt as to who the brethren are: But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel. Judges 20:13 Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other members of the nation of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In the same way Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to the other tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Levi. In another passage we read that Moses said to the people of Israel: One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Deuteronomy 17:15

! 272

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Only one of the brethren of the Israelites could be appointed as king over the nation. They were not allowed to place a foreigner, such as an Ishmaelite, over them. Here the principle is reinforced that the prophet who was to come from among "their brethren" was to be an Israelite, only not one of the people of the tribe of Levi. In Europe for many centuries it has been customary for monarchs to come from various nations so as to maintain a close relationship between the various countries. German, British, French and Greek princes have often intermarried with princesses or other royal women from other nations. In Israel, however, there was an express command to the people that they were not to put anyone from another nation over them as king because they had been set apart as the people of God distinct from the pagan nations around them. â&#x20AC;¨

Jesus the Prophet from Among Their Brethren Do we have any evidences, however, to prove that Jesus qualifies as the prophet foretold in this particular context? The New Testament quite clearly records that Jesus was descended from Judah through the line of David. He is expressly said to have descended from "Judah, the son of Jacob" (Luke 3:33) and in another place we read "Now it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah" (Hebrews 7:14). Jesus is therefore obviously the one who was to come from one of the other tribes of Israel. Together with the other evidences we have considered there can be no doubt that he is the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. Muhammad meets none of the vital criterion for qualifying for this office. Other Muslim arguments in favor of Muhammad also do not stand the test of close scrutiny. God said of the prophet to come "I will put my words in his mouth" and Muslims say that, by revealing theQurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an to Muhammad who repeated it to his followers, the prophecy was fulfilled. According to Islam, however, the Tawraat was equally so revealed to Moses, the Zabur to David, and the Injil to Jesus. So each of them had the words of God in their mouths. To Jeremiah God said "Behold I have put my words in your mouth" (Jeremiah 1:9). Likewise God went on to say to Moses "he shall speak to them all that I command him". Jesus once said to his disciples: For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. John 12:49 The Muslims can raise no unique evidences to prove, from the context of the prophecy, that Muhammad was the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !273

Another argument centers on the questions the Jews once put to John the Baptist after he denied that he was the Christ, namely whether he was Elijah and, if not, whether he was the Prophet? (John 1:21). They argue that the Jews distinguished between Elijah, the Christ and the Prophet, and that they were, in order, John the Baptist, Jesus and Muhammad. Nothing conclusive can be drawn from the speculations of the Jews, however. Once they said of Jesus "This is indeed the prophet" (John 7:40). On another occasion they concluded he was "one of the prophets" (Matthew 16:14), on another "a prophet" (Mark 6:15), and thought of him as both Elijah (Mark 6:15) and as possibly John the Baptist himself (Matthew 16:14). Nothing conclusive can be drawn from their guesswork. There can be no doubt, from all we have considered, that it was Jesus Christ and not Muhammad whose coming was foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18.

5.4 Jesus’ Promise of the Coming Comforter Muslim: According to your Bible did not Jesus speak of another prophet to come after him whom he called the Comforter? This was obviously a prophecy of the coming of our holy prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an even confirms the prophecy. The greatest of all the Muslim claims that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible comes from the promise of Jesus to his disciples, recorded four times in John’s Gospel, that he would be followed by yet another person sent from God whom he called the Comforter, one who would guide them into all the truth. From the earliest centuries of Islam Muslim scholars have endeavoured to prove that the Comforter was Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. Of all the challenges made to Christians in witness among Muslims, this one is undoubtedly the most frequent. Yet even here Christians have, when responding to their arguments, tremendous opportunities for witness to Muslims of who the Comforter really is – the Holy Spirit – and how he fulfils the redeeming work of Jesus.

Muslim Arguments about the Comforter It is in the following texts that Muslims believe they have proof that Muhammad was duly foretold by Jesus in terms of the Qur’anic text which states that they would find his coming prophesied in the Injil as well as the Tawraat (Surah 4:157): But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:26

! 274

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. John 16:7 Both these sayings come from a lengthy discourse of Jesus on the last night he was with his disciples before his crucifixion. On two other occasions in the same discourse he again spoke of the coming Comforter (John 14:16, 15:26). Muslims claim that he was undoubtedly speaking of Muhammad for the following reasons: 1. Muhammad Led the World into all the Truth Muslims argue that, when Jesus said the Comforter will "teach you all things", this was fulfilled in their Prophet who, in delivering the Qur’an, taught the world all it needs to know about God, his laws, and the way of life he expects his servants to follow. So likewise, when Jesus said "he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13), Muhammad is claimed to have done exactly this as the Qur’an discourses at length on the Last Day (Yawma’l Akhir), the Resurrection, the Final Judgment, and the destiny of the human race to heaven (Jannat) or hell (Jahannam). 2. The Use of the Masculine Gender Muslims often make much of the fact that, in speaking of the coming Comforter, Jesus used the masculine gender no less than eight times. They argue that, when Jesus said "He will glorify me, he will not speak on his own authority, he will guide you into all truth", etc., he was obviously speaking of a man, a prophet, and not the Holy Spirit. A spirit it is claimed, being neither male nor female, cannot be spoken of in anything but the neutral gender but, as Jesus consistently used the word he to describe the Comforter, this must refer to a male prophet, namely Muhammad. 3. The Comforter Was to Come after Jesus The third argument commonly used by Muslims to prove their case is that, as Jesus said the Comforter would not come until he had gone away, this must mean Muhammad. Once again, they reason, it cannot refer to the Holy Spirit because, according to the Bible, the Holy Spirit had always been there. David prayed that God would not take his Spirit from him (Psalm 51:11) while John the Baptist was said to have been filled with Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15).

The Christian Response to these Arguments There are simple answers to these three arguments. A careful study of the whole context of the relevant verses shows quite clearly that Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !275

who indeed came down within ten days after Jesus’ ascension as he had promised (Acts 2:1-21). Firstly, the Holy Spirit duly brought to the remembrance of Jesus’ disciples all that he had said to them. John only wrote his Gospel some sixty years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, yet he was able to record the whole of his last discourse to his disciples accurately in no less than four chapters (John 13:1 - 16:33). The complete teaching which followed is recorded, not in the Qur’an, but in the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. All its teaching is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16) and none of it is subject to man’s interpretation, because it never came through human impulse since "men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21). Secondly, throughout the Bible both God and the Holy Spirit are always referred to in the masculine gender. "He is your Praise, he is your God" (Deuteronomy 10:21) is a typical example of its constant use to describe the Divine Being even though God is not man but spirit (John 4:24). The Muslim argument can be turned on its head by referring to a passage of the Qur’an where Allah is spoken of in the masculine gender no less than seven times in quick succession (Surah 59:22-24). "He is Allah and there is no god besides whom he is" is the middle text (v. 23) and it begins and ends with the masculine huwa ("he is") and not the neutral hiya ("it is"). If Allah, who is spirit and not man, can nonetheless be spoken of in the masculine gender in the Qur’an, why can the Holy Spirit likewise not be spoken of in the same terms? There is no hint in the four sayings of Jesus about the Comforter that he would be a man or a prophet, rather he is expressly identified as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Thirdly, Jesus not only said he had to go away before the Comforter would come, but also promised that he would personally send him to his own disciples, to Peter, James, John and the rest. "I will send himto you" he said (John 16:7), not to Arabs in Mecca or Medina six centuries later. It could hardly have been to the disciples’ advantage if the Comforter was not to come almost immediately after Jesus left the earth. When he was about to ascend to heaven Jesus expressly told them to wait a short while in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit before they went out proclaiming the Gospel (Acts 1:4-5). The Comforter had indeed been present in the world before this time but now he was to be poured out in a new way right into the hearts of all who believed in Jesus. They had experienced the ministry and presence of Jesus with them for three years but now his presence was to be known in a way even more to their advantage – by the fact of the Spirit actually living within them.

5.5 "His Name Shall be Ahmad" in the Qur’an

! 276

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Muslim: According to the Qur’an Jesus specifically predicted the coming of Muhammad as the "Praised One". This was his actual prophecy. You Christians have since changed the original word Periklutos ("Praised") into Paracletos ("Comforter"). Muslims particularly concentrate on Jesus’ promise of a coming Comforter because it seems to confirm a similar text in the Qur’an where he is said to have expressly predicted the coming of Muhammad: And remember Jesus, son of Mary, said "O Children of Israel! I am a messenger of Allah to you, confirming what is before me from the Tawraat, and announcing tidings of a messenger to follow me whose name shall be Ahmad". Surah 61:6 Although the prediction is not of Muhammad by his actual name, Muslim scholars point out that Ahmad comes from the same three root letters as his own name, hmd, meaning "praise". It seems Muhammad knew that Jesus had spoken of someone to follow him but had not done so by name and, for this reason, he avoided any mention of himself personally in adapting the prophecy to the Qur’an, using a title as close to his name as he could to ensure the necessary inference that it was him.

Periklutos or Parakletos? The original word in John’s Gospel translated as "Comforter" is paracletos, meaning (as the English equivalent "paraclete" implies) one who clings closely as a counsellor, consoler or mentor. It never means "one who is praised". It is obvious from the sayings of Jesus that the original word is the correct one as everything he had to say about the Comforter related precisely to this concept of a close adviser. "He will take what is mine and declare it to you" is typical of the description Jesus gave to the Holy Spirit. He was to dwell in hearts of his disciples and would give them an insight and guidance into God’s ways and the power to fulfil them from within their own souls. He would come to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment as God’s agent speaking through the witness and proclamations of Jesus’ disciples. Nevertheless Muslims have, in their writings, argued that the Christian world has corrupted the original saying of Jesus and that it incorporated the word periklutos which means "Praised One". This roughly coincides with the title Ahmad in the Qur’an, having the same basic meaning. Is there any substance in the Muslim claim? Are there any evidences to prove it? 1. Periklutos is not a Biblical Word

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !277

There is no manuscript evidence whatsoever that the original word may have been periklutos. In fact the word nowhere appears in the Greek New Testament and is accordingly not a Biblical Word. The Muslim claim is based, not on any kind of concrete, factual testimony but purely on a supposition to suit themselves. 2. The Word does not Fit into the Context As pointed out already, the definition of the coming one whom Jesus promised was primarily of a counsellor and advocate. There is nothing in all four sayings of Jesus about the Comforter to support the contention that he was to be "the Praised One". On the contrary, when Jesus said "he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak" (John 16:13) he made it clear he would specifically not draw attention to himself. "He will glorify me" Jesus went on to say (John 16:14), meaning he would give praise to Jesus through the witness of his followers rather than claim any praise for himself. 3. It is Muslims who are Changing the Bible The irony of this issue is that we have here clear evidence of a Muslim attempt to do what they have always wrongly accused the Christian world of doing, namely of trying to change the Bible to suit their own preferences! They have had to resort to a strange distortion to make the prophecy of Jesus fit Muhammad, and purely to bring into being some kind of connection with the name (or title) Ahmad in the Qur’an. It is clear they cannot prove their point directly from the Biblical texts as they stand. There is no justification for the claim that the original word used by Jesus was periklutos or any Hebrew equivalent of it. Most importantly, as we have seen, it does not linguistically fit the context of his sayings.

The Title Ahmad in the Qur’an There have been a number of disputes over the years about the employment of the word Ahmad in the Qur’an. Today it is a common first name among Muslims throughout the world, but there is no evidence in Arabian records dating back to the time of Muhammad that it was ever used as a personal name in the early centuries of Islam. It almost certainly came into popular use as a result of this text of the Qur’an. It is more probable that the actual form of the word in Surah 61:6, ahmadu, was a simple adjective in the Arabic language of the time. This is supported by the fact that, in the sayings of Jesus we have considered, a proper name of the coming comforter is entirely omitted.

! 278

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

It is also very interesting to note that in one of the early codices of the Qur’an which Uthman ordered to be burnt, namely that of the expert reciter Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Surah 61:6 read somewhat differently. He omitted the conclusion "his name will be Ahmad" (ismuhu ahmad) and in its place records Jesus as saying that he was announcing a prophet who would bear the seal of Allah from his prophets and messengers (khatumullaahu bihil-anbiyaa’ wal-rusuli). From a Christian perspective Surah 61:6 is an attempt to modify the prophecy of Jesus about the coming of the Holy Spirit to apply it instead to the Prophet of Islam. Some centuries before his time a counterfeit messiah named Mani also tried to apply the prophecy to himself and it seems that it was well known in the vicinity of Arabia during the centuries following the time of Jesus. It would only be natural for someone like Muhammad, believing he was the last of the messengers of Allah, to want to secure it in some deliberate way for himself – hence the adaptation of the title into the name Ahmad in the Qur’an.

5.6 The Holy Spirit: The Promised Comforter Muslim: You cannot deny that Jesus did speak specifically of another messenger of God to follow him. As he was only one of a long line of prophets and apostles sent by God, is it not surely logical to assume that the Comforter was to be Muhammad? In discussion with Muslims on this subject it is useful to take just one of the four sayings of Jesus about the coming Comforter, and to show from it that he could only have been speaking of the Holy Spirit. At the same time a healthy witness can be given to just how the Holy Spirit brings true believers into a relationship of personal unity with God himself. The ideal text for this purpose is this one: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. John 14:16-17 There are a number of reasons why this passage can only apply to the Holy Spirit and not to the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad.

Another Comforter: The Spirit of Truth

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !279

By applying sound principles of interpretation to this passage we will find at least seven reasons for concluding that the promised Comforter was the divine Holy Spirit who Jesus promised would come to his disciples shortly after his ascension to heaven. 1. He will give you Another Comforter Jesus specifically told his disciples that he would send the promised Comforter to them. He repeated the promise later by saying "I will send him to you" (John 16:7). Thus the coming of the Spirit of Truth, also specifically declared to be the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), was something the disciples of Jesus were to expect in their time and environment. Muhammad only appeared six centuries later. 2. He will give you Another Comforter If, as Muslims claim, the original title was periklutos, then the sentence would have read "He will give you another praised one". It not only makes no sense but is completely out of context. What Jesus is saying here is simply: "I have been your comforter, your counsellor and adviser. I have yet many things to teach you, but I will send you another counsellor and guide like me". He had come from God as a spirit from heaven and had taken human form for the duration of his short life on earth. He would send another spirit from above to fulfil his ministry to his followers. The Qur’an interestingly confirms that Jesus came from God, calling him a "spirit from him" (ruhun-minhu), a title given to no other human being in the book (Surah 58:22). In the only other instance where the Qur’an speaks of a ruhun-minhu, it speaks of a spirit whom God sends into the hearts of true believers to strengthen them – precisely who the Holy Spirit is. So the Qur’an agrees that there were only two spirits whom God has ever sent from himself into the world, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, each one a paracletos, a guide and mentor, to comfort and lead the true followers of God on earth. 3. To be With You Forever When Muhammad came to the fore as the Prophet of Islam in Arabia in the 7th century after Christ he did not stay with his companions forever but died at the age of 62 years. He was buried in Medina where his body has lain for nearly fourteen centuries. Jesus stated that the promised Comforter, however, would be with his disciples forever and the Holy Spirit has done just that, living in the hearts of all true followers of Jesus to this day. 4. The Spirit of Truth whom the World Cannot Receive

! 280

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

The Qur’an says that Muhammad came as a universal messenger to all mankind (Surah 34:28). Muslims believe that one day the whole world will submit to Islam and become followers of their Prophet. If so Jesus could not have been speaking about him for he declared that the world as a whole cannot receive the Spirit of Truth. Only the true followers of Jesus, who turn to him as their Saviour and Lord, can be born anew of the Holy Spirit and become heirs of eternal life. 5. You Know Him It is quite obvious from this statement that Jesus’ disciples already knew the Spirit of Truth. As Muhammad was only born more than five hundred years later it could not have been him. The Comforter was aSpirit with whom the disciples were already familiar. The next clause states precisely how he was already known to them. 6. He dwells With You When Jesus first came to John the Baptist to be baptised by him at the very beginning of his ministry, the heavens were opened and John himself records what happened next: I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptise with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptises with the Holy Spirit’. John 1:32-33 The Spirit of Truth was at all times in the person of Jesus himself, and in this manner the disciples of Jesus had already come to know him. At no time could Muhammad have been said to have already been with Jesus’ disciples. 7. He Will be In You As the Spirit was already in Jesus, so it would also enter into and be forever present in the hearts of Jesus’ disciples once he had returned to heaven. This happened on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who heard the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus for the first time. God’s love continues to be poured into the hearts of those who turn in faith to Jesus through the same Holy Spirit given to them (Romans 5:5). The Greek word here is en, meaning "right inside you". The promise clearly cannot refer to Muhammad who has never entered personally into the hearts of all true Christian believers. Christians can not only easily refute Muslim arguments in favour of Muhammad as the promised Comforter but, as you can surely see, have at this point an excellent base to witness effectively to Muslims.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !281

Chapter Six

The Gospel of Barnabas The Spurious Gospel in Islamic Apologetics

6.1 Muslim Interest in the Gospel of Barnabas Muslim: Why has the Christian world hidden the Gospel of Barnabas? This illuminating book proves that Jesus was a true Prophet of Islam, proving that he never claimed to be the Son of God and that he predicted the coming of our Prophet by name. In witness with Muslims a Christian evangelist will often find that they raise the subject of the Gospel of Barnabas. With great confidence they will claim that it is the only reliable record of the life of Jesus Christ and that we have deliberately concealed it because it shows Jesus to have been the prophet the Qur’an declares him to have been. If you should express surprise to hear that such a book actually exists they will press home their contentions all the more, declaring that your ignorance of the book is a sure sign that the Church has forcefully suppressed its teaching.

The History of the Barnabas Gospel In his Preliminary Discourse to his translation of the Qur’an first published in 1734 AD, George Sale first drew the attention of the Christian world generally to a Gospel attributed to St. Barnabas which, he said, records the life of Jesus in a manner very different from that found in the four Biblical Gospels but corresponding to the traditions of Muhammad in the Qur’an. He mentioned a Spanish translation in the possession of the Moriscoes in Africa (which no longer exists apart from a few known extracts), and an Italian translation in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy. From this edition Lonsdale and Laura Ragg published a translation into English which was published in 1907 with various notes, proving Sale’s contention that it is a forgery. Since the beginning of this century, when an Arabic translation became well known in the Islamic world, Muslim scholars and writers have made much of the book. In 1973 the Raggs’ English translation of the Gospel was first published in the Muslim world. Since then approximately 100 000 copies have been printed in Pakistan. It has caused considerable excitement as it appears to finally prove, from Christian origins, that Jesus

! 282

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

was the ‘Isa of Islam and that Muhammad was indeed to be the final messenger of God to all mankind. Muslims fondly suppose that this Gospel has been denounced in the Christian world solely because of its Islamic character. It is truer to say that this is the only real reason why it has attracted so much publicity in the Muslim world. The external and internal evidences around the book give a far better reason for rejecting it. They prove conclusively that it was compiled only a few centuries ago as a deliberate forgery to impose both Qur’anic and traditional Muslim dogmas on the life of Jesus as it is described in the four genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unlike these books which are between twenty and forty pages each, the Gospel of Barnabas is 273 pages long. Much of its teaching is repetitive of Biblical teaching, though adapted to suit Islamic preferences. For example, when ten lepers were healed on one occasion by Jesus, the only one to return was a Samaritanwho fell at his feet, giving him thanks (Luke 17:16). The Gospel of Barnabas conveniently states that he was an Ishmaelite! The rest of its teaching, however, consists of legendary and fanciful stories and forged teachings of Jesus of no historical value at all. Let us consider a few of its typical Islamic teachings.

Islamic Teachings of the Barnabas Gospel 1. Jesus Denied that he was the Son of God The Gospel of Barnabas repeats the incident where Jesus asked his disciples, firstly, who the multitudes thought he was and, secondly, who they thought he was (Matthew 16:13-20). When Peter answered that he was the Son of God, Jesus responded that he was blessed because his Father in heaven had revealed this to him. In the Gospel of Barnabas, however, while Peter is correctly recorded as declaring that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the answer of Jesus to him was totally different. Jesus is supposed to have declared to Peter "Begone and depart from me, because thou art the devil and seekest to cause me offence!" He then is reputed to have told all his disciples to beware because "I have won from God a great curse against those who believe this" (Gospel of Barnabas, para 70).   2. Judas was Crucified in Place of Jesus The Muslim doctrine that Jesus was taken alive from the earth just before he was due to be arrested while someone else was made to look like him and was crucified in his place

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !283

is repeated in this Gospel, only it specifically makes the victim Judas Iscariot. It was only some centuries after Muhammad that the Muslim world first taught this theory, invented to justify the crucifixion of a bystander who might otherwise have seemed to be an innocent substitute. The Gospel of Barnabas teaches that when Judas arrived with soldiers to arrest Jesus, God sent four angels to take Jesus out of the world into the third heaven while Judas "was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus" that Barnabas and the other disciples believed him to actually be Jesus (Gospel of Barnabas, para 216). Judas was duly crucified in his place.   3. Jesus Predicted the Coming of Muhammad by Name In many places Jesus is said to have declared the coming of Muhammad by name, as in this statement made after he said he would first have to endure the infamy that he had been crucified: "But whenMohammed shall come, the sacred messenger of God, that infamy shall be taken away" (Gospel of Barnabas, para 112). These are some of the central Islamic features of the Gospel of Barnabas where its teaching contradicts the contents of the four Biblical Gospels. Numerous other Islamic influences can be found throughout the book, such as the claim that the covenantal promise to Abraham was made in Ishmael and not Isaac (para 191), explaining the Muslim conviction that this is the only true Gospel.

6.2 Medieval Origins Proving it is a Forgery Muslim: Among the books discredited by the Gelasian Decree in the sixth century after Christ was the Gospel of Barnabas. This proves that it existed at that time. It was only rejected because it told the truth about Jesus’ life and teaching. There were numerous apocryphal Gospels, Epistles and other forgeries similar in style to the authentic New Testament scriptures that were rejected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and in the subsequentDecretum Gelasianum of which one was titled the Gospel of Barnabas. No historical record whatsoever exists to show what sort of book it was or what it taught. From a study of the contents of this Islamic Gospel so strongly promoted in the Muslim world, however, it soon becomes obvious that these two cannot possibly be the same works. There are many proofs that the latter is a 16th century forgery.

! 284

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Medieval Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas It is not hard to prove to Muslims that this Gospel was first compiled many centuries after the times of both Jesus and Muhammad. Three of examples of medieval influences will be considered here.   1. The Centenary Year of Jubilee One of the laws Moses gave to the people of Israel was that a jubilee year was to observed twice every century when slaves would be liberated and debts cancelled. God ordained it in these words: A jubilee year shall that fiftieth year be to you. Leviticus 25:11 About 1300 AD Pope Boniface the Eighth decreed that the jubilee year should be reintroduced but that it should only be held at the turn of each century, that is, once every hundred years. After his death, however, Pope Clemens the Sixth decreed that the jubilee year should revert to every fifty years following the Biblical decree and there was talk thereafter of reducing it further. In the Gospel of Barnabas this saying is attributed to Jesus: And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place. Gospel of Barnabas, para 82 The anachronism is obvious – the author of the Gospel of Barnabas could only have spoken of the jubilee year coming every hundred years if he knew of the decree of Pope Boniface. Whoever wrote this Gospel makes Jesus repeat a proclamation which was only made at least thirteen centuries after his time! This proves that the Gospel is a forgery of not earlier than the 14th century AD.   2. Quotations from Dante’s Inferno Dante was an Italian who lived at about the same time as Pope Boniface. He wrote a well-known classic titled Divina Comedia – the "Divine Comedy". It was a fantasy about hell, purgatory and heaven according to the beliefs of his time. Many passages in the Gospel of Barnabas show a dependence on his work, one of which is a saying attributed to Jesus of the prophets of old:

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !285

Readily and with gladness they went to their death, so as not to offend against the law of God given by Moses his servant, and go and serve false and lying gods. Gospel of Barnabas, para 23 The expression dei falsi e lugiardi (false and lying gods) is found elsewhere in the Gospel of Barnabas. Jesus is recorded as again using this phrase (para 78) while Herod is also said by the author to have "adored the false and lying gods" (para 217). The cliche is found in neither the Bible nor the Qur’an but is a direct quote from Dante! (Inferno 1.72). In its actual descriptions of heaven and hell the Gospel of Barnabas follows Dante exactly while contradicting the Qur’an. Jesus is said to have declared to Simon Peter: Know ye therefore that hell is one, yet hath seven centres one below another. Hence, even as sin is of seven kinds, for as seven gates of hell hath Satan generated it: so there are seven punishments therein. Gospel of Barnabas, para 135 Dante gives precisely this description in the fifth and sixth cantos of his Inferno. Speaking of the heavens the Gospel of Barnabas states that they are nine and that Paradise itself is greater than all of them together (para 178). This again parallels Dante who also speaks of nine heavens with an Empyrean, a tenth heaven above them all. These depictions of heaven, however, directly contradict the Qur’an which teaches that after Allah had created the earth, he fashioned paradise as seven heavens (Surah 2:29).   3. The Medieval Environment of the Gospel Other passages from the Gospel show that the author was more at home in the climate and seasons of southern Europe than in the land of Palestine. He makes Jesus speak of how beautiful the world is in summer-time when the harvest and fruit abound (para 169). This is a fair description of Italy in summer but not of Palestine where the rain falls in winter and the fields are parched in summer. Likewise the Gospel of Barnabas speaks of storing wine in wooden wine-casks (para 152), a common practice in medieval Europe but not in first-century Palestine where wine was stored in skins (Matthew 9:17). Further proof of the author’s ignorance of the geography of Palestine is found in this statement: Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought. Gospel of Barnabas, para 20 In this passage Nazareth is represented as a harbour on the Lake of Galilee. After this Jesus is said to have gone "up to Capernaum". Every disciple of Jesus would have

! 286

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

known that Capernaum was the city on the shores of the lake while Nazareth is up in the hills. Jesus would have gone up from Capernaum to Nazareth, not the other way around as the Gospel of Barnabas has it. These evidences all prove that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery compiled in southern Europe sometime around the 16th century after Christ. Let us proceed to examine other evidences that discount the authenticity of this book that calls itself a Gospel.

6.3 Other Evidences Against its Authenticity Muslim: The Gospel of Barnabas must be the true Gospel since it teaches that Jesus was not to be the final messenger of God to mankind but that this honour would be reserved to our holy Prophet Muhammad who he said would follow after him. There are numerous other evidences against the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas, some of which derive from the very passages where Jesus is said to have foretold the coming of Muhammad. It is very interesting to note that this Gospel makes no mention of John the Baptist – a striking omission, considering the attention given to him as a contemporary prophet to Jesus in the Biblical Gospels. Instead sayings of John are attributed to Jesus, such as "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’" (John 1:23) which is ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of Barnabas together with the whole conversation that surrounds it (para 42). The author of this Gospel conveniently, but very erroneously, makes Jesus say of Muhammad what John actually said of him.

The Messiah – Jesus or Muhammad? John the Baptist denied that he was the Messiah when challenged by the Jewish leaders (John 1:20). The Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus deny the same thing in much the same words: Jesus confessed and said the truth: ‘I am not the Messiah ... I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah’. Gospel of Barnabas, paras 42, 82 Who was to be the coming Messiah, then? Elsewhere the Gospel makes Jesus say "The name of the Messiah is Admirable ... God said: Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise ... Mohammed is his blessed name" (para 97). Here the author of the Gospel of Barnabas completely overreaches himself for the Qur’an clearly states, no less than eleven times, that Jesus alone is the Messiah. The Bibleconfirms this too on many

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !287

occasions (John 4:26, Matthew 16:20) and one quotation from the Qur’an will be sufficient to prove the point: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the hereafter. Surah 3:45 The title here is Al-Masih, "the Messiah", and Jesus himself is called Al-Masihu Isa, "the Messiah Jesus", elsewhere in the book (Surah 4:171). So the Gospel of Barnabas incontrovertibly contradicts the Qur’an when it declares that Muhammad was to be the Messiah. No Muslim can be true to his own holy book while at the same time trying to defend the Gospel of Barnabas as an authentic Gospel. What is very interesting here is the discovery that this Gospel not only contradicts the Qur’an but also itself. In the prologue to the book it speaks of "Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ" and states that it is the "true Gospel of Jesus, called Christ". The author does not seem to have been aware that Messiah and Christ are interchangeable terms, meaning the same thing. The latter derives from the Greek wordChristos which is a translation of the original Hebrew word Mashiah.

Contradictions between the Barnabas Gospel and the Qur’an There are other contradictions between the Qur’an and the Gospel of Barnabas which cannot be satisfactorily explained. One relates to the birth of Jesus as it is told in each book. The Gospel says this about the moment of his delivery: The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright and brought forth her son without pain. Gospel of Barnabas, para 3 This statement has no Biblical equivalent but parallels Catholic beliefs of the Middle Ages. It is further evidence that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery composed up to fifteen centuries after the time of Christ. What is significant for Muslims, however, is that it totally disagrees with the Qur’an which says of Mary and the birth of Jesus: And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. Surah 19:23 There is little room here for Muslims to maintain their cherished belief that they have, in the Gospel of Barnabas, an original Gospel which is consistent with the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. It is not surprising that many Muslim scholars have, in recent times, rejected the Gospel as a forgery. Nonetheless there are still many Muslim writers, often well aware of the overwhelming evidences against it, who still promote it as an authentic text.

! 288

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Another typical contradiction between the two books is found in the statement in the Gospel of Barnabas about the angels of God on the last days before the great Judgment: "The fifteenth day the holy angels shall die, and God alone shall remain alive" (para 53). The Qur’an knows nothing about the death of angels but states that eight of them shall bear the throne of Allah on the Last Day (Surah 69:17). Again the Gospel of Barnabas states that on the thirteenth day of the final period before the end, all mankind will die and every living thing on the earth shall perish (para 53) whereas the Qur’an states that men will be alive until the last day, the great Day of Judgment, when the trumpet shall sound and "every man will have enough concerns on that day to make him heedless of others" (Surah 80:37). In witness with Muslims it should be easy to get the Gospel of Barnabas dispensed with once these evidences are produced to them. The book is a counterfeit of no value which has been promoted by Muslims as a red herring across the path of genuine ChristianMuslim apologetics.

6.4 The Original Authorship of the Gospel Muslim: Barnabas was known to have been one of the great disciples of Jesus. How can you even contemplate trying to discredit a Gospel written by him? If he was one of the twelve, why do you Christians conveniently reject everything he wrote? One of the great questions about this Gospel is indeed its original authorship. Who wrote it? Although it is obvious that the book is a forgery of relatively recent times it is important nonetheless to prove to Muslims that Barnabas could never have been its author. Throughout the book its author is said to have been one of the twelve disciples of Jesus yet it is well known that the real Barnabas only appears on the scene after the death and resurrection of Jesus and, furthermore, that he only received his name as a result of an incident that took place much later. The evidence is found in the following passage: Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. Acts 4:36-37 It was only when this man Joseph encouraged the early Church by donating the proceeds of the sale of his property to the disciples of Jesus that he was given the surname bar-nabas. Thereafter he is a prominent personality in the record of the initial development of the Church and is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament (Galatians 2:9). He was most certainly not one of the original twelve, however, whose

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !289

names are all recorded in two of the Gospels (Matthew 10:2-4, Luke 6:14-16). He is not mentioned at all in the four Gospels and the composer of this forgery has, as it were, left his fingerprints on its text by including what is a glaring anachronism. Jesus is said to have called him by name on numerous occasions of which the following passage is an example: Jesus answered: ‘Be not sore grieved, Barnabas, for those whom God hath chosen before the creation of the world shall not perish’. Gospel of Barnabas, para 19 Such an address before Jesus ascended to heaven was impossible if he only received the title some time after the event.

The Probable Authorship of the Barnabas Gospel There are some evidences that give rise to the probable authorship of this book. In the introduction to the Spanish version of the Gospel there was a statement that it was a translation of the Italian version done by an Arragonian Muslim named Mostafa de Aranda. Sale also adds a note that in the preface to the Italian version a certain Fra Marino, a Roman Catholic monk, is said to have heard of the existence of the Gospel of Barnabas and happened to come upon it while looking through the library of Pope Sixtus V who was conveniently asleep in his presence. The story concludes with the monk quietly removing the book and converting to Islam once he had read through it. Whoever the author was it is clear that he was very conversant with the land of Spain and its environment. He could well have been a Spanish Muslim forcibly converted to Christianity around the time of the Spanish Inquisition who took private revenge by compiling an Islamic Gospel. He might well have written it first in Italian to give it a more authentic appearance before translating it into his own language. There is clear evidence of Spanish influence in this quote attributed to Jesus: For he would get in change a piece of gold must have sixty mites. Gospel of Barnabas, para 54 The Italian version divides the golden denarius into sixty minuti. These coins were of Spanish origin dating from the pre-Islamic Visigothic period and betray a Spanish influence behind the Gospel. It is far more likely that the author was Fra Marino himself as there is also much evidence that the book was written by someone very familiar with Italy and its language. From other works it is known that the real Fra Marino was at one time a close associate of Fra Peretti who was a key figure in the Inquisition and later duly became

! 290

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Pope Sixtus V. As a result of certain malpractices in his administration as an inquisitor Fra Marino fell out of favour with Fra Peretti and received no further promotion. Peretti, however, went on from one distinction to the other until he obtained the papacy itself. His fate at the hand of Peretti once he became Pope may have led him to compose this Gospel as an act of private revenge against him, especially if he had subsequently converted to Islam. There is much support for this theory in the story that, while in audience with the Pope, he found the original manuscript in the papal library while the Pontiff dozed off. Conveniently it just happened to be the first book he laid hands on. Muslims today often claim, pursuant to this fictional episode, that the Popes of Rome have always deliberately concealed the Gospel of Barnabas from public knowledge in an act of calculated conspiracy against its contents. It is far more probable that Fra Marino himself, or someone familiar with these gentlemen, composed the manuscript and invented the story of its supposed "discovery". We will never know for certain who actually wrote this Gospel. What we do know is that it most certainly could not have been written by the Apostle Barnabas who was at no time one of the immediate disciples of Jesus. If the Gospel of Barnabas serves any purpose it is perhaps to prove that it is impossible to compose a life of Jesus consistent with the factual evidences of his life and teachings as found in the four true Gospels which at the same time promotes him as a prophet of Islam. The book fails dismally in its attempt to do precisely this. In conversation with Muslims it is important to dispose of this Gospel as soon as possible. It offers no useful contribution to the field of Christian-Muslim apologetics.

6.5 Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts Muslim: In his Gospel Barnabas expressly repudiates the teaching of Paul that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact even the New Testament records that Paul and Barnabas couldn’t agree. It was because Barnabas taught the ultimate truth about Jesus. The Gospel of Barnabas begins with a statement that "many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus Son of God ... among whom Paul also hath been deceived" (para 1). At the very end of the book Paul is again accused of being deceived for the same reason. Muslims latch on to a passage in the Bible where it is recorded that "there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other" (Acts 15:39) to prove that Paul and Barnabas could not agree with each other and claim that this is proof that Barnabas differed with

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !291

Christianity’s foremost apostle on the major points of Christian doctrine. The aim is to prove that Barnabas rejected these beliefs and wrote his Gospel to correct them.

Barnabas and Paul: Two Close Companions Anyone reading through Acts 15 will discover that the only point of disagreement between these two men was on whether they should again be accompanied by John Mark on a later journey. Paul did not want him to go with as he had let them down on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). For this reason alone they separated. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus while Paul chose Silas as his future companion (Acts 15:39-40). All the other evidences in the Book of Acts prove that, far from being an opponent of Paul, Barnabas consistently stood by him and backed his teaching. When Paul was converted through a dramatic vision of Jesus in the sky as he made his way to Damascus, he remained a few days in the city with the other disciples of the Lord and then finally entered the local synagogue, proclaiming Jesus and declaring "He is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). There can be no doubt, therefore, that right from the time he first became a follower of Jesus Christ Paul declared the heart of the Christian doctrine. From here it is important to know what role Barnabas played in accompanying him on his travels.   1. Barnabas First Introduced Paul to the Other Apostles When Paul first returned to Jerusalem after his conversion the other disciples were very afraid of him, knowing his relentless persecution of the early Church. They did not believe that he was a true disciple of Jesus. It is a revelation to discover, in the light of the vehement attacks made on Paul in the Barnabas Gospel, just who it was who commended him to the disciples: But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. Acts 9:27 From here on, until their dispute on a personal matter, Paul and Barnabas were constantly together. In fact, as we shall see, the real author of the Gospel of Barnabas could hardly have made a more inappropriate choice for the authorship of his forgery.   2. Barnabas Sought Paul to help him Teach in Antioch

! 292

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

As soon as the Church in Jerusalem heard that the Church in Antioch was growing well, the Apostles sent Barnabas there to instruct the new disciples in the faith of Jesus. Barnabas, however, decided he could not do this alone. Who did he send for to assist him? No one else but Paul! He went all the way to Tarsus to look for him and, when he found him, he brought him to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). What follows is significant: For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians. Acts 11:26 Under the ministry of these two men the believers were first called Christians because Paul and Barnabas taught them the basic truths of what makes Christianity the religion it is today – that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. These are the very things that the Gospel of "Barnabas" is at such pains to deny. Throughout their travels together Paul took the initiative in preaching the Christian Gospel while Barnabas stood by him, vindicating everything he said. There can be no doubt that Barnabas was not the author of the anti-Paul Gospel attributed to him.   3. Both Barnabas and Paul Rejected Circumcision According to the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus is recorded as teaching that circumcision is one of the most important acts of religious piety. Both Judaism and Islam to this day faithfully observe the ordinance. Jesus is supposed to have said: Leave fear to him that hath not circumcised his foreskin, for he is deprived of paradise. Gospel of Barnabas, para 23 It is most ironic to find that the real Barnabas joined Paul in vehemently opposing circumcision as a necessary ritual for salvation: But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:1-2 In one of his Epistles Paul states that, when he and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, they took Titus, an uncircumcised Greek believer in Jesus, as a test case. Paul laid before the apostles the Christian Gospel he was preaching – one devoid of the legalistic rituals that characterise Judaism and Islam – to see if they disagreed with him on any point. They not only agreed that Titus should not be circumcised (Galatians 2:1-3) but "gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" (v. 9). It does appear that no one was closer

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !293

to Paul in his preaching of the Christian faith than this man Barnabas. He cannot possibly be the author of the Gospel falsely attributed to him. The Gospel of Barnabas is a book of no true historical value. Muslims should be gently persuaded to put it aside and instead take time to read the four genuine Gospels where the real truth about Jesus has been written.

Bibliography   1. CHRISTIAN AND OTHER LITERATURE ON MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS Adang, Camilla. Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1996. Bevan Jones, L. Christianity Explained to Muslims. Y.M.C.A. Publishing House, Calcutta, India. 1952. Brown, David. Jesus and God in the Christian Scriptures. Christianity and Islam 1, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Brown, David. The Christian Scriptures. Christianity and Islam 2, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Brown, David. The Cross of the Messiah. Christianity and Islam 3, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Brown, David. The Divine Trinity. Christianity and Islam 4, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Burman, Thomas E. Religious Polemic and the Intellectual History of the Mozarabs, c. 1050-1200. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1994. Geisler, N.L. and Saleeb, A. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross. Baker Books, Michigan, United States of America. 1993. Goddard, Hugh. Muslim Perceptions of Christianity. Grey Seal Books, London, United Kingdom. 1996. Jeffery, Arthur. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. AMS Press, New York. United States of America. 1975.

! 294

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Muir, Sir W. The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching. S.P.C.K, London, United Kingdom. 1903. Muir, Sir W. The Beacon of Truth. The Religious Tract Society, London, United Kingdom. 1894. Muir, Sir W. The Mohammedan Controversy. Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. 1897. Nehls, Gerhard. Christians Ask Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town. Republic of South Africa. 1980. Nehls, Gerhard. Christians Answer Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town. Republic of South Africa. 1980. Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1976. Pfander, C.G. Miftahu’l Asrar: The Key of Mysteries. The Christian Literature Society, Madras. India. 1912. Pfander, C.G. The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth. Church Missionary House, London, United Kingdom. 1867. Pfander, C.G. The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth). The Religious Tract Society, London, United Kingdom. 1910. Rice, W.A. Crusaders of the Twentieth Century: The Christian Missionary and the Muslim. Church Missionary Society, London. United Kingdom. 1910. Seale, M.S. Qur’an and Bible: Studies in Interpretation and Dialogue. Croom Helm, London, United Kingdom. 1978. Samir, K.A. and Nielsen, J.S. Christian Arabic Apologetics During the Abbasid Period. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1994. Thomas, David. Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 1992. Tisdall, W. St.Clair. A Manual of the Leading Muhammadan Objections to Christianity. S.P.C.K., London, United Kingdom. 1912. Wherry, Rev. E.M. The Muslim Controversy. The Christian Literature Society, Madras, India. 1905.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !295

Zwemer, S.M. Mohammed or Christ. Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd., London, United Kingdom. 1915. 2. MUSLIM BOOKS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY Ajijola, AlHaj A.D. The Myth of the Cross. Islamic Publications Limited, Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Alwi, Sumali. Divinity of Jesus: A Dialogue between B. Mudhary and A. Widuri. Pustaka Aphiya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 1987. Ansari, Muhammad F.R. Islam and Christianity in the Modern World. World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan. 1965. Assfy, Zaid H. Islam and Christianity. William Sessions Limited, York, United Kingdom. 1977. Ata-ur-Rahim, Dr. Akbar. Jesus a Prophet of Islam. MWH Publishers, London, United Kingdom. 1979. Aziz-us-Samad, Ulfat. A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1983. Aziz-us-Samad, Ulfat. Islam and Christianity. International Islamic Federation, Peshawar, Pakistan. 1982. Deedat, Ahmed. The Choice: The Qur’an or the Bible. Thinkers Library, Selangor. Singapore. Durrani, M.H. The Quranic Facts About Jesus. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1983. Hamid, Abdul. Islam and Christianity. A Hearthstone Book, New York, United States of America. 1967. Imran, Maulana Muhammad. The Cross and the Crescent. Malik Sirajuddin & Sons, Lahore, Pakistan. 1979. Jameelah, Maryam. Islam Versus Ahl al Kitab, Past and Present. Mohammed Yusuf Khan, Lahore, Pakistan. 1968.

! 296

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Joommal, A.S.K. The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man? I.M.S. Publications, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1976. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja. The Sources of Christianity. Woking Muslim Mission & Literary Trust, Lahore, Pakistan. 1973. Manjoo, Muhammad E. The Cross and the Crescent. Foto-Saracen, Durban, Republic of South Africa. 1966. Muhammad Ali, Moulvi. Muhammad and Christ. Ahmadiah Anjuman-i-Ishaet-i-Islam, Lahore, India. 1921. Niazi, Kausar. The Mirror of Trinity. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Obaray, A.H. Miraculous Conception, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (Nabi Isa) as Taught in the Kuran. Author-published, Kimberley, South Africa. 1962. Rahmatullah, Maulana M. The Ijaharu’l Hakk; or Truth Revealed. Publisher not named, India. 1860. Sadr-ud-Din. Fundamentals of the Christian Faith in the Light of the Gospels. Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. Shafaat, Ahmad. The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible. Nur Media Services, Montreal, Canada. 1982. Tabari, Ali. The Book of Religion and Empire. Law Publishing Company, Lahore, Pakistan. Zidan, Ahmad. Christianity: Myth or Message? A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 1995. 3. CHRISTIAN BOOKLETS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY Adelphi, G. and Hahn, E. The Integrity of the Bible According to the Qur’an and Hadith. Hyderabad, India. 1977. Abd al Fadi. Sin and Atonement in Islam and Christianity. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beirut, Lebanon. Anderson, M. The Trinity: For Christians and Muslims. Pioneer Book Company, Caney, United States of America. 1994.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !297

Butrus, Zachariah. God is One in the Holy Trinity. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Basel, Switzerland. 1996. Eric, Walter. Let the Bible Speak for Itself. Life Challenge Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. 1996. Jadid, Iskandar. The Cross in the Gospel and Quran. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beirut, Lebanon. Jadid, Iskandar. The Infallibility of the Torah and the Gospel. Centre for Young Adults, Basel, Switzerland. Khalil, Victor. The Truth of the Quran in the Light of the Bible. Author-published, Detroit, United States of America. 1981. 4. MUSLIM BOOKLETS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY Abidi, Syed Azmat Ali. Discovery of the Bible. Defence Housing Society, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Al-Hilali, M.T. Jesus and Muhammad in Bible and Qur’an. Kazi Publications, Chicago, United States of America. al-Johani, M.H. The Truth About Jesus. World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 1987. Bhula, Ismail. A Reply to Mr A.H. Obaray! Young Men’s Muslim Association, Johannesburg. South Africa. 1963. Deedat, Ahmed. Combat Kit Against Bible Thumpers. Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1992. Deedat, Ahmed. Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1984. Deedat, Ahmed. Is the Bible God’s Word? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1980. Deedat, Ahmed. Resurrection or Resuscitation? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1978. Deedat, Ahmed. Was Christ Crucified? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1965.

! 298

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Deedat, Ahmed. What Was the Sign of Jonah? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1976. Joommal, A.S.K. The Riddle of Trinity and the Sonship of Christ. Islamic Missionary Society, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1966. Muhsin, Ali. Let the Bible Speak. Author-published, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Najaar, A. Muslim Judicial Council Chairman’s Comments on Obaray’s Booklet. Islamic Publications Bureau, Cape Town, South Africa. Shabazz, Ala’uddin. The Plain Truth About the Birth of Jesus According to the Holy Bible. New Mind Productions, New Jersey, USA. 1981. 5. PROPHECIES TO MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE Anonymous. Do You Know? The Prophet Muhammad is Prophesied in the Holy Bible! Y.M.M.A., Johannesburg, South Africa. 1960. Anonymous. The Prophet Muhammad in the Bible. Jamiat Ulema Natal, Wasbank, Republic of South Africa. Badawi, J. Muhammad in the Bible. Islamic Information Foundation, Halifax, Canada. 1982. Dawud, A. Muhammad in the Bible. Angkatan Nadhatul-Islam, Bersatu, Singapore. 1978. Deedat, Ahmed. Muhammad in the Old and New Testaments. Islamic Publications Bureau, Cape Town, South Africa. Deedat, Ahmed. Muhammad Successor to Jesus Christ as Portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. Muslim Brotherhood Aid Services, Johannesburg, South Africa. Deedat, Ahmed. What the Bible Says About Muhammed. Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1976. Durrani, M.H. Muhammad the Biblical Prophet. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1980. Hamid, S.M.A. Evidence of the Bible About Mohammad. Author-published, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !299

Kaldani, D.B. Mohammad in the Bible. Abbas Manzil Library, Allahabad, Pakistan. 1952. Kassim, Hajee Mahboob. Muhammad in World Scriptures. Chishtiyya Publications, Calcutta, India. 1990. Mufassir, Sulayman Shahid. The Bible’s Preview of Muhammad. Al-Balagh Foundation, Tehran, Iran. 1986. al-Qayrawani, Faris. Is Muhammad the Promised Parakletos? Al-Nour, Colorado Springs, United States of America. 1992. Shafaat, A. Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical Prophecies. Nur al-Islam Foundation, Laurent, Canada. 1984. Vidyarthy, A.H. Muhammad in World Scriptures. (3 volumes) Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam, Karachi, Pakistan. 1974. 6. THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS Anonymous. The Gospel of Truth: The Barnabas Bible. Islamic Dawah Centre, Pretoria, South Africa. Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf. The Gospel of Barnabas. (3rd edition), Karachi, Pakistan. 1974. Campbell, Willam F. The Gospel of Barnabas: Its True Value. Christian Study Centre, Rawalpindi, India. 1989. Durrani, M.H. Forgotten Gospel of St. Barnabas. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1982. Gairdner, W.H.T. & Abdul-Ahad, S. The Gospel of Barnabas: An Essay and Enquiry. Hyderabad, India. 1975. Jadeed, I. The Gospel of Barnabas: A False Testimony. The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. 1980. Niazi, Shaheer. Is the Gospel of Barnabas a Forgery? Siddiqi Trust, Karachi, Pakistan. Peerbhai, Adam. Missing Documents from Gospel of Barnabas. Islamic Institute, Durban, South Africa. 1967.

! 300

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Ragg, L & L. The Gospel of Barnabas. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 1907. Rahim, M.A. The Gospel of Barnabas. Quran Council of Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Slomp, J. Pseudo-Barnabas in the Context of Christian-Muslim Apologetics. Christian Study Centre, Pakistan. 1974. Slomp, J. The Gospel in Dispute. Pontificio Istituto Di Studi Arabi, Rome, Italy. 1978. Slomp, J. The Pseudo-Gospel of Barnabas. Bulletin, Secretariatis pro non Christianis, Citta del Vaticano, Italy. 1976. Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. George Allen & Unwin Limited, London, United Kingdom. 1984. Wadood, A.C.A. The Holy Prophet Foretold by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of St. Barnabas. Ceylon Muslim Missionary Society, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 1973.

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !301

INDEX

JESUS VS. ALLAH: WHO IS GOD? DID JESUS EVER CLAIM TO BE GOD? Dr. JAY SMITH 1. -EGO EIMI (Jn8:58) vs EGO EIMI HO ON (Ex3:14) [LXX] -Jn8:58 = “Before Abraham was born ἐγώ εἰ,ι I AM -8:41 “Abraham did not want to kill me” -8:56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced at seeing my day” -Could have used ‘Emen’ (past) ‘Before Abraham was, I was’ -But he used ‘Eimi’ (present) -Ex 3:14a = “I AM who I AM” ἐγώ εἰ,ι I AM ὁ ὤν THE BEING -EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (Hayah = ‘to be’) - EGO EIMI HO ON -I AM WHO IS, or I am the Being = who was, is, & will be (eternality) -Ex.3:15 = YAHWEH (Yod, He, Waw, He) = KURIOS (LXX) = LORD -Who’s speaking: Ex.3:2=Angel of the Lord, 3:4=The LORD, 3:5=God -Num.22:31-32 = (Balaam) ‘Angel of the LORD...with sword’ -Josh.5:13-15=‘Man with Sword’ = Lord: “Take off your sandals...holy” -Ex.6:2-4 “I am YHWH; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shadday), but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them. [Yahweh was not known before Moses] 2- ‘EGO EIMI’ IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Deut. 32:39 See now that I, EVEN I, AM HE (ego eimi) Isaiah 41:4 I the Lord, the first, and with the last; I AM HE (ego eimi) Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, & my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know & believe me & understand that I AM he (ego eimi ego eimi). Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, AM the LORD, & apart from me there is no saviour” Isaiah 46:4 I AM he (ego eimi) who will sustain you Isaiah 48:12-13 I AM he (ego eimi); I am the first, I also am the last. My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, & my right hand spread out the heavens Isaiah 48:17 I AM (ego eimi) the LORD your God Isaiah 51:12 I, even I, AM he (ego eimi ego eimi) who comforts you...the LORD our Maker, who stretched out the heavens & laid the foundations of the earth Isaiah 52:6 My people will know my name...that I am he (ego eimi)

! 302

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

3- ‘EGO EIMI’ IN THE NEW TESTAMENT The 10 times”ego eimi” is used without a predicate in John 1) John 4:26 Jesus said to [SAM woman], “I who speak to you am He” 2) 2) John 6:20 But He said to [disciples/waves], “It is I; do not be afraid” -Mt.14:27, 32 “It is I” [ego eimi] – They worshipped him as Son of God -Mk.6:50 “Take courage! It is I [ego eimi], Don’t be afraid” -Ps.107:23-30 The Lord calms the seas and the storms -Job9:8 ‘He alone stretches out the heavens & treads on the waves of the sea’ 3) John 8:24 “If you do not believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins” 4) 4) John 8:28 “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am” 5) 5) John 8:58 “Jesus said, before Abraham was born, I am”. At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself (Mt.12:15) 6) John 9:9 The blind man kept saying, “I am [ego eimi] the man.” 7) 7) John 13:19 “When it does happen, you will believe that I am He” -Is43:10 “That you may know & believe me & understand that I am he” 8) John 18:5 Jesus of Nazareth said [those arresting him] “I am he” 9) 9) John 18:6 When Jesus said, “I am he”, they drew back & fell to the ground 10)10) John 18:8 “I told you that I am he” Yahweh says that he is the “I AM” because: He gives life He is Eternal (Jn.17:5) He is the Saviour He sustains and delivers None can deliver out of his hands He is from ancient of daysHe forgives and blots out sins He alone declares the future and brings it to pass He comforts his people Compare these claims with the claims of the Jesus He gives eternal life He is eternal (Jn.17:5) He is the Saviour (Jn.3:16; 4:42) He raises the dead He sustains and delivers He is able to prevent anyone from delivering out of his hands He preserves believers from perishing He came down from heaven (i.e is from ancient of days) He predicts the future and has it come to pass He forgives and blots out sins He gives comfort to his people THE ACTS OF JESUS WHICH PROVE HE IS GOD Forgives sin = God (Mk. 2:5-7) Calms the storm/obeys Him (Mk. 4:39-41) [Ps.107:23-30] The Resurrection & the Life (Jn. 11:25) Answers Prayers (Jn. 14:13) Receives Prayers (Jn. 13:14 & Acts 1:24-25) Knows Men’s thoughts (Jn. 4:18, 29 - SAM; Mt.12:25-Pharisees)

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !303

Speaks with Divine authority (Mt. 5:43-44 – New covenant) Greater than the temple (Mt. 12:6) Pharisees = ‘Who can forgive sins but God’ (Mk. 2:6) Caiaphas = ‘...He has spoken blasphemy’ (Mat. 26:65) Jesus: ‘EGO EIMI’ (Jn.4:26; 6:20; 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5; 18:6; 18:8) WHAT LANGUAGE DID MOSES SPEAK? -Egyptian God = ‘Nuter’, Hebrew & Ugaritic God = ‘El’ -Not Arabic = Allah (9th c. BC) -9thBC-? Old Arabic (personal names) Shalmaneser III 853 BC “land of Arbi” -8thBC Tiglath Pileser III (745-727 BC) 1st reference to Arabs (Aramaic) -4thBC-3rdAD Thamudic – no. Arabian desert and Sinai (Proto-Arabic -1stBC-4th AD Safaitic – no. Syro-Arabian dialect -2ndBC-8thAD Nabataean -7th – 9th AD - Classical Arabic (language of the Qur’an) [C.H.M. & Kees Versteegh, The Arabic Language, Edinburgh Univ Press,p.23] -God spoke to Moses in Hebrew, thus He used Yahweh -Where is YHWH in the Qur’an, or spoken by Muhammad? -S.20:12-14 ‘I, even I, am thy Lord...I even I, am Allah’...no God save me YAHWEH VS ALLAH Is.42:8 “I am Yahweh, that is my name. I will not give my glory to another” Is.43:11 “I, even I, am Yahweh, and apart from me there is no saviour” Commonalities: Deut.4:35 ‘The LORD is God; there is no other besides him’ (unique) S.112:1, 4 ‘He, Allah, is One...and none is like him’ (unique) Is.45:12 ‘I have made the earth, created man... stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Creator) S.7:54 Indeed, your Lord is Allah , who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne....” (Creator) Lk.4:8 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve” (Worshipped) S.39:2 So worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in religion.” (Worshipped) 1 Chron.29:18 O Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel” (Proph. line) S.12:38 Religion of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Proph. line) Differences: Mt:3:17 “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Son-ship) S.39:4 Had Allah willed to take a son, He could have chosen.. (Son-ship)

! 304

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Yahweh is Personal (Gen.3:8-9) Yahweh is 3 Person, 1 God Yahweh is separate yet near Yahweh enters Time & Space Yahweh Reveals Himself Yahweh creates Man in His image Yahweh is Covenantal (Matt.5) Yahweh died for His children Yahweh creates relevant morality Yahweh allows free Will Allah is impersonal Allah is a Monad Allah is Transcendent Allah cannot enter Time & Space Allah cannot be known Allah has no image Allah is not Covenantal Allah died for no one Allah creates irrelevant morality Allah allows NO free Will Allah creates unjust punishment Allah Sins = acceptable (S.53:32) Allah Pray to Mecca (S.2:142-150) Allah Death for apostasy (S. 4:89) Yahweh permits Salvation for ALL Yahweh: Sin leads to Death (Rm6:23) Yahweh Pray anywhere (Jn.4:23) Yahweh allows Rejection (Mt.10:33) Yahweh Adultery forgiven (Jn. 4:1011)Allah Adulteres whipped (S.24:2)ALLAH HAS HUMAN QUALITIES Face (S.92:20) Eyes (S.52:48) Ears (S.58:1) Mouth (Buk 9:bk93:532) Hands (S.5:64) Finger (Buk 9:bk93:510-511) Left & Right Side (S.90:17- 19) Shin (S.68:42) Foot (Buk 9:bk93:509 &515) Shade (Buk 2:bk24:373) PROBLEMS WITH ALLAH -Allah is a contraction of ‘Al-Ilahi’ = Generic Description = ‘The God’ -Dusharah = title = ‘The Lord of Sharah’ -Al-Lat = Consort of Allah [‘Lion of ALLAT’ in Palmyra] -Al Uzzah = ‘Mightiest’ [another name for Al-Lat] -Al Manat = a Goddess of Hegra -Hubal (God of Hegra) = local god [Dr. John Healey ‘The Religion of the Nabataeans’ (Man University) [Dr. Jane Taylor ‘Petra, the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans] Q&A Why doesn’t Jesus say he’s God Jn.10:23-30? “If Christ, tell us plainly” -Confronting Pharisees UNBELIEF vs His SHEEP ‘in His hand’ (Dt.32:39) John 10:33-38 “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? (Psalm 82:6)–“You are gods...but you will die like mere men” (Judgment) -Read vss 27-28 “I know my sheep, and they follow me, I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; no-one can snatch them out of my hand” Jesus didn’t know the last hour (Mt.12:18-He is a servant) (Phil.2:6-11) Why Jesus prays to God? (Heb 5:7) = Communes w/God (S.33:56=Allah) Why call ‘me’ good, only God is good? Rhetorical-do u know what u say? I can do nothing by myself (Jn.5:30) Previously equal to Father (vs18) -gives life (21) Judges (22) equal honor w God (23) in

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !305

unity w God (30) Says he is separate from God (Jn.20:17b) Context-about 2 return 2 Father -Then, Thomas worships him as ‘My Lord and my God’ (vs 28) Subject to God the Father (1Cor.15:28) Equal in nature, subject in function -[Unity in diversity] i.e. I have different function than queen, but equal b4 God Why Jesus not in OT? ‘Angel of the Lord’ (Ex3:2; Num22:31-32; Josh5:13-15) Who was Melchizedek? (Heb7) Is eternal, so most likely pre-Jesus 2 Tim 3:16 only for OT ‘God Breathed’ for all of scripture (Rev.22:18-19) Gethsemane prayer - for deliverance - Mt. 26:36-42 = ‘Your will be done’ This sickness will not end in death (Jn11:4, 14) Vs 44 ‘He came out’ YAHWEH Unique Name: Yahweh = Personal & Holy Exodus 3:14a = Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (Ego Eimi ho on) Exodus 3:15 = ‘Yahweh’ (3rd Person) [John 8:58] Deut.4:35 ‘The Lord is God; there is no other besides Him’ Immanent: Yahweh comes to earth numerous times -Gen.3:8-9 (Garden of Eden with Adam & Eve) -Gen.18:1 (Tent of Mamre with Abraham) -Gen.32:28-30 (Wrestling with Jacob) -Ex.23:20-21 (Pillar of cloud/fire with Israelites) Personal: Enters ‘time and space’ -Ex.33:11 - Communicates with Mankind face-to-face Ex.33:22 - Yet, passes by Moses in the cleft of the rock Hebrew Monotheistic/Triune God -Gen.1:1 ‘In the Beginning ‘gods’ (plural) created (singular) -Gen.1:26-27 ‘Let us make Man in OUR...in HIS image’ -Deut.6:4 ‘Yahweh Eluhenu, Yahweh Echad’ (Tri-une) Just: Yahweh never deceives, and comes Himself to die for us. Father/Son: God is our ‘Daddy’ (i.e. Prodigal Son) Yahweh has a Son: John 3:16 (Shares everything God is) Yahweh found 6,823 times Yahweh appeared to Mankind: Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Moses, Men, Women, Slave, Free, Jew Gentile ALLAH Generic Name: Allah = ‘The God’ (Not Unique, nor Holy) Surah 27:8 ‘Blessed whoever is ‘in’ the fire’ (‘min fi’) Surah 27:9 ‘It is I, Allah, the All-Mighty, the All Wise’ S.112:1,4 ‘He, Allah, is one...and none is like him’ Distant: Allah ‘never’ comes to earth -Totally distant and totally ‘other’ -Except at the Burning Bush (S.20:10-14 & 27:8-9) Impersonal: Never enters ‘time and Space’ -Never talks to Mankind face-to-face -S.19:17 – Ruh appears as a man, but Allah cannot?

! 306

| ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

Nabataean/Polytheistic god -Allah taken from Nabataean ‘Ilahi’ = ‘Dushara’ -Allah’s wife = ‘Al-Lat’ = ‘Al-Uzza’ (S.6:101) -Thus, Allah is pagan, polytheistic, and not Deceitful: Allah deceives often (S.4:157 – Man on the cross) Master/Slave: ‘Abdullah’ = Slave of God Allah could not have a son, unless he willed it: S.39:4 (Biological) Yahweh is not found even ONCE (So, who is Allah?) Allah cannot appear to anyone (Except to Moses) [S.20:10-14; 27:8-9] PEOPLE WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HE WAS GOD Followers of Jesus: Peter = ‘God our Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Pet. 1:1) Thomas = ‘My Lord and my God’ (Jn. 20:28) John = ‘...And the Word was God’ (Jn. 1:1) John the Baptist = ‘Prepare the way of the Lord/unworthy’ (Jn.1:3, 23, 27) Paul = ‘And there is One Lord, Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 8:6) Hostile Witnesses: James = ‘Lord of Glory’ = Yahweh (James 2:1) Evil Spirits = ‘You are the Holy one of God’ (Mk.1:24) Evil Spirits = ‘You are the Son of God’ (Mk. 3:11; 5:6-7)

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

| !307

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 1

WHY CARE ABOUT MUSLIMS

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

! 308 |

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 2

HOW MUSLIMS COME TO CHRIST

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

!309

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 3

HOW ISLAM PLANS TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

! 310 |

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 4

INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

!311

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 5

Everything You Need to Know About Radical Islam

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

! 312 |

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 6

Jesus in Islam and Christianity

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

!313

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 7

INSIDER MOVEMENTS

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

! 314 |

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

APPLICATION - VIDEO LESSON 8

COMPLETING THE GREAT COMMISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

Write a 2-3 Sentence Summary of the Lesson

A question you can ask your Muslim friends...

Personal Reflection point

Prayer point (try to include a bible verse)

What question(s) do you have?

Action Point

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

!315

! 316 |

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

!317

! 318 |

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

!319

WITNESSING REPORTS BASIC GUIDELINES During this course we want to encourage you to go out and share your faith with Muslims at least once a week for an hour. Its best to schedule a time, mark it on your calendar, make it a priority, and go! So find a friend pray and figure out where to find the Muslims in your area. You can go to a Mosque on Friday, or find restaurants where you have seen them, or neighborhoods where they live .... etc. Because we want to respect and love the Muslim community while staying safe, please follow these basic guidelines (please keep in mind that there are exceptions to some): 1. Dress conservatively. The general rule; the less skin showing the better. 2. Go in groups of two. This especially applies if you are going to an unknown place or don’t know the people you will be meeting. 3. Women should always be accompanied by a man. Women should never go alone with another woman unless they are only meeting with Muslim women. 4. You should be cautious of giving out personal information, especially your address. Ladies, never give a man you don’t know your phone number. 5. Do not share about the class (i.e. course offering, lectures, textbooks). It is best to remain humble in any ministry efforts to Muslims. 6. Have fun! These are wonderful people with beautiful cultures who are often hungry to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Write a 1 page report after each time you share your faith with a Muslim. Please use the following criterion: 1. Did you go out? 2. Where did you go? 3. How did you approach them? 4. What questions did you ask? 5. What questions did they ask? 6. What materials did you use from the readings? 7. How long did you share? 8. Will you have a second meeting? When? 9. Were you ‘nice’? 10. How would you grade your overall effort? 11. What did the Holy Spirit speak to you? 12. How did the Holy Spirit lead you?

! 320 |

ISLAM'S ISSUES, AGENDAS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

i2 Ministries: Who are we and what do we do? i2 Ministries provides intensive classes on video in Muslim Ministry and Islamic Studies from the leading experts in the field. We believe the solution to global, radicalized Islam is found in a well-trained, mobilized, and spirit-led Church, equipped in Biblical theology, spiritual warfare, missiology, apologetics, and Islamics, It is our goal to facilitate the Church as she endeavors to finish the Great Commission among Muslims.

Four Ways to Connect with i2 Ministries 1. Become a student and study through our program 2. Help us with social media projects 3. Become a Course Facilitator - Train groups/churches in your area 4. Work with us training 200+ nations in 80 languages!

Partner with us! Want to partner with us create, produce, update, publish and distribute the best training to needy churches globally? Let us know the language, nation and groups your interested in reaching with the gospel and letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reach them together! For more information contact us at: info@i2ministries.org If you would like to donate, we are so thankful www.i2minsities.org/donate/