Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy and Blessings be upon you).
The Conclusion of Discussion with David Wood.
White, Wood, Shamoun… ‘We Got the Muslims Now’
That’s right! James White, David Wood and Sam Shamon have us surrounded, what ever are we doing to do?
As Christian-Muslim polemic advances in technique and new arguments are brought forth I have found one particular polemic quite crafty.
Instead of Muslims questioning the veracity of the New Testament manuscripts and various problems in the Bible, the Christians have come up with a very clever machination.
You see, The Qur’an you have confirms the Bible I have in my hands! Voila! So no need to convince anyone that the New Testament is exactly as it is today as it was when supposedly penned down by its authors etc.
So The Muslim is supposed to just drop their faith in the Qur’an, and belief that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah and become one of many thousands of different Christian denominations.
This maybe a very effective technique in places where food is scarce and faith is scarce, but any well studied Muslim knows the ruse that the Christians are up too.
In fact these are not new arguments or presentations. I firmly believe that Christian apologetic has run out of gas; however they are simply dressing up old arguments or presenting old arguments to new audiences.
The Zwemer institute for Muslim studies continues to wield influence upon Christians engaged In Muslim apologetic and polemic.
So let me take one last look at the presentation of David Wood borrowed from Sam Shamoun used by James White and taken from Samuel Zwemer.
Revelation: Oral or Textual?
David Wood says:
“You erroneously assume that just because the Qur’an was supposedly sent down orally, it wasn’t intended to be written down. Well, the Quran exposes this error:”
I told David Wood from the beginning, that I believe that the Qur’an, the Torah and the Gospel were all wahy. That means revelation that was sent down orally, and than latter was to become text. This David Wood either conveniently forgot, or conveniently left out.
The case of Waraqa
David Wood says:
"He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!” Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while."
“This is easily refuted. Since the Muslim sources say that Waraqa died immediately after Muhammad’s so-called “revelations” began, he never got the chance to hear what Muhammad would have to say about Christ. Had he lived and heard of all Muhammad’s denials and blasphemies, Waraqa would have turned against Muhammad, much like the rest of the Jews and Christians did. After all, didn’t Waraqa entertain the possibility that the spirit who appeared as Gabriel was possibly a demon sent to deceive Muhammad?”
So basically David is saying that if Waraqa would have lived and found out that Muhammed (saw) was not teaching that Jesus was the Son of God etc, he would have rejected Muhammad.
Maybe and maybe not, however David and all those who like to use this story is still missing the point. Let us say that we agree with David’s position. Let us say that Waraqa lived on to hear the message of Muhammed (saw). Let us say that he than rejected Muhammed (saw) as a Messenger.
The point that David and his cohorts are missing is that Waraqa’s Christianity did not preclude the ideal of a person being a Prophet after Jesus! That is something to think about for those who give thought.
Are we to say that Waraqa was Greek Orthodox? Was Waraqa a Reformed Baptist? Was Waraqa a Roman Catholic? The point is that what ever Christianity Waraqa professed to believe in it did not preclude the possibility of accepting a prophet after Jesus!
Of course Christian apologists like David Wood like to conveniently leave that as an aside.
Written or described?
David Wood and I had a back and forth over the proper translation of Holy Qur’an 7:157. It is not that I completely disagreed with David Wood and his choice of translators. I was simply trying to get him to look at the various usage of the word ‘maktaboon’. That the name Muhammed (saw) did not have to be written it could be described.
David Wood says:
“Again, the Qur'an claims to be clear. But we find, over and over, that the Qur'an is totally unclear. You believe that "written" should be translated as "described." Thus, you must believe that numerous translators are in error. What is the source of their error? The source of their error is the ambiguity of the Qur'an, which claims to be clear!”
So if the Qur’an is in error because of its ambiguity than I guess I have a premise to reject the New Testament text simply because there are different translations? I was simply trying to get David Wood to see beyond his reliance upon Sam Shamoun and his usage of the word for manipulation.
I also offered David Wood an example from the New Testament he claims to believe in. David Wood simply ignored it altogether.
Luke 24:44-45
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
I would like to offer that there is simply a misunderstanding between David Wood and I on this point. If David Wood is trying to say that maktaboon can mean written in the form of a text, I have no issue with that. However, I want him to be aware of the fuller usage of the word. I simply making the point that Jews and Christians of that time did not have to frantically flip through the ‘Torah’ and the ‘Injeel’ (what ever they may have been) to look for the word Muhammed. Muhammed (saw) can simply be mentioned or described.
So if this is the contention I submit to David’s point here.
The very kooky use of Ibn Ishaq
Apparently David Wood and Sam Shamoun want to use Ibn Ishaq as a proof that the Qur’an confirms the New Testament (22 or 27 books is not known). Or that that at least some early Muslim scholars were perfectly fine with endorsing the entirety of the New Testament text (22 or 27 books is not known).
For example David Wood quoted:
“You may not know, but Ibn Ishaq sure did:”
"Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY: 'He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me
"The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) In Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete." (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Karachi Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth Impression 1995), pp. 103-104)
Again I do not see what the issue is. Ibn Ishaq mentions about that ‘which has reached me’ but he does not say how. Is it oral or written? Is he talking about an oral transmission given to him, or is he reading from a text in front of him.
Think about this. If he is reading from the text, and this text is what David Wood claims than what about all the passages where Jesus is called the ‘Son of God’? Is Ibn Ishaq endorsing this? Ibn Ishaq died a Muslim.
Is David Wood willing to testify to a tradition that reached Ibn Ishaq that mentions about the coming of Munahhemmana? Also what is the Protestant stance on the Diatessaron? It does not contain (John 7:53-8:11) does it contain Mark 16:9-20?
Why has God allowed Christians to be deceived into thinking that Revelation, Jude, James, 1st and 2nd Peter was not canon? Why has God allowed Christians to be deceived into thinking that Mark 16:9-20 was canon when it was not?
I find it incredulous on behalf of Christians to ask ‘Where is the Gospel’ when they themselves do not have the Gospel of Jesus.
What is meant by the Torah and the Gospel?
David Wood seems to know what is meant he says:
“Why does the Qur'an seem to presuppose that we know what is meant by "Torah" and "Gospel"?
Answer: The Qur’an addresses an audience that would understand what is meant by ‘Torah’ and ‘Gospel’
“More importantly, WHAT DID THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS OF MUHAMMAD’S TIME HAVE WITH THEM WHICH THE QUR’AN CALLS THE TORAH AND GOSPEL? The answer is obvious: the Old and New Testament writings, specifically the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels.”
Notice what David Wood does here. He says, “The answer is obvious: the Old and New Testament writings, specifically the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels.” The reason David Wood puts emphasis upon the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels is that he knows there is no ‘textual, historical, manuscript and archaeological evidence’ to support the Old and New Testament writings in the 7th century Arabia . It is simply a fantasy.
“I can tell you what it says. The Gospel which the Qur’an is commanding Christians of Muhammad’s time to judge by is none other than what we find in the New Testament. This is based on the fact that the textual, historical, manuscript and archaeological evidence shows that the canonical Gospels are the only books which the Church possessed and affirmed as the Gospel, especially during the seventh century.”
I would sure love to see that evidence wouldn’t you?
David Wood asserts:
"(7) You're still left with the fact that the Qur'an commands me to judge by the Gospel. Okay, where it this Gospel?”
Actually David, this is what the Qur’an commands:
Qur’an 5:68
—Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”
The other thing to point out is that the Qur’an is not talking to Christians in the 21 century. Obviously the Qur’an is talking to Christians in the time of the Prophet Muhammed (saw). So the real question becomes. What Christians does the Qur’an have in mind? Where these Christians products of the Reformation? Where these Christians Roman Catholic? Where these Christians Greek Orthodox?
They were obviously Christians who had no problem with entertaining the possibility that there were Prophets after Jesus as in the case of Waraqa.
The next question would be the one you ask. ‘Where is this Gospel’? That is a most excellent question. 1st Let us ascertain whom or what did the Qur’an deem to be Christian. In other words who was the immediate audience of the Qur’an? 2nd What did those Christian or Christians regard as canon and/or the Gospel?
What is the Gospel of Jesus?
Are all of the teachings and deeds of Jesus contained with in the Gospels?
David Wood seems to think that anything that is not in his New Testament canon about Jesus is simply fallacious.
Keep in mind this is only one of many Christian positions on the matter.
Fore example David says:
“Now if you want to get silly and claim that the Qur’an may have been referring to some other Gospel such as the gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic Gospels or even the one read by the Ebionites, you are only going to be further damaging Muhammad’s reliability. If these are the writings which the Qur'an is confirming, then Muhammad is a false prophet for contradicting the Christology taught in these so-called gospels. (And why didn't the Qur'an clarify which "Gospel" was confirmed, since most Christians would assume that it's referring to the New Testament Gospels?) In other words, Muhammad loses either way.”
You seem to think that I've got a problem because I say that Muhammad drew from heretical and apocryphal sources, and I also say that Muhammad could only be referring to the canonical Gospels when he said "Gospel." Perhaps I should make my view as clear as possible:
(a) Many of Muhammad's teachings were obviously drawn from heretical, historically untenable, late works. This shows that he was a false prophet.
(b) Muhammad referred to a book, in the possession of Christians, which was revealed by God. If he was referring to the New Testament Gospels, then he was a false prophet, since these books contradict the Qur'an. If he was referring to other books, then he was a false prophet, because these books are late, heretical, and contradict the Qur'an. If he was referring to some book that we no longer possess, then he was a false prophet, since (i) the Qur'an commands us to follow this book that we do not possess, (ii) the Qur'an says that this book cannot be corrupted (even though it's totally disappeared), and (iii) the Qur'an is completely unclear as to what this book is (when the Qur'an claims to be clear). Hence, there are many possibilities, but all of them point to a single conclusion: Muhammad was a false prophet.
You ask some questions about the contents of the Gospel. If you're asking just for your personal knowledge, I might answer you. But it seems you're asking because you think it's relevant to the present discussion. I want to be clear (much more clear than the Qur'an): For purposes of our present discussion, it doesn't matter whether the "Gospel" was one book, or four books, or twenty-two books, or twenty-seven books, or fifty million books. It doesn't matter what verses are in the Gospel of Mark. If the Gospel was what we have today, then Muhammad was a false prophet. If the Gospel was something different from what we have today, then Muhammad was a false prophet. Either way, Muhammad was a false prophet. What sense does it make to ask irrelevant questions about the contents of the Gospel; when any answer to these questions would make Muhammad was a false prophet?
Well, I'm officially bored. I hope you'll make the only reasonable move, given the evidence before us. The only reasonable move, given the evidence, is to reject Islam. Of course, we haven't discussed the evidence for Christianity, but that's a different issue.
David has quite a mouthful on this particular point of the discussion. I have also noticed a tendency among David Wood and Sam Shamoun. That is that as soon as they realize their particular position is starting to fall apart they will try and subtly shift the topic of discussion.
For example David Wood would love to shift the topic of the discussion to ‘Is the Qura’n clear or unclear’. That seems to be a consistent theme of his throughout this discussion. So it is really challenging to get any where with Christians involved in polemic and apologetic. As soon as you stand point by point with them they immediately want the topic to shift!
Any way David Wood made some interesting and bold assertions.
You see David Wood, James White and Sam Shamoun are in a real pickle. On the one hand they want you to believe that the when the Qur’an is talking about Christians and the Injeel they want you to understand the following: Christians = Reformed Baptist. Injeel= New Testament canon inclusive of 27 books.
Yet, in the same breath they claim that Muhammed (saw) drew from heretical sources.
So David Wood says that Muhammed (saw) drew from ‘obviously heretical sources’ So I guess that makes David Wood, James White and Sam Shamoun heretical for not ascribing to the Roman Catholic Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church.
Let us say for the sake of argument that we agree with their tenuous position. This would be heretical by which standards?
For example David Wood and Sam Shamoun like to make a big whooping hue and a cry over the Diatessaron supposedly quoted by Ibn Ishaq above. Yet, they don’t ever pause to think of those implications.
The Diatessaron which is supposedly written by Tatian (though this is disputed) was not authorized. It was not an undertaking by the Church of Chalcedon
Which should give make one ponder. Even until today in South India Syriac Churches survive that only accept a New Testament canon with 22 books. That is quite far away from Palestine
So would it not be possible that
Unless the Trinity of David Wood, James White, and Sam Shamoun are willing to establish with certainty which Christians the Qur’an was addressing than they are not interested in serious dialog and discussion.
David Wood, James White and Sam Shamoun should establish and provide evidence of the exact documents that were available to the Christians in the Arabian Peninsula during the 7th century. So far there has been much bluster but no muster.
So let me now answer the question:
Are all of Jesus sayings, and teachings and actions recorded in the New Testament?
I think any fair minded Christian would say of course not! Jesus is reported to have lived for 33 years. 3 years of his life is recorded in the New Testament. Obviously this left allot of very sincere and pious Christians wondering. What the heck was God doing for 30 years?
Keep in mind that the Gospel of John says,
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
John 21:25.
Now Christians will say that this statement is hyperbole. I would agree with that; however to say that it is not based upon some element or measure of truth is also quite a stretch.
Taking into consideration the agrapha.
“After all, Jesus taught by his “living voice”, the early church preserved and used his teaching largely with the living voice, and some second-century church leaders like Papias still preferred it.
Acts 20:35 refers to a saying of Jesus through Paul, “It is more blessed to give than to received.” Paul himself on rare occasion makes explicit reference to sayings of Jesus: 1 Corinthians 7:10, 9:14, 11:24-25 (Eucharistic words), and possibly 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Also, some agrapha occur in variant readings of the New Testament manuscripts. For example, in Codex Bezae (fifth century) a variant reading of Luke 6:5 says:
“The same day, seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath, he [Jesus] said to him, “Man, if you indeed know what you are doing, happy are you; but if not, you are accursed and a transgressor of the law.”
The best –known example of a narrative agraphon is the story of the woman caught in adultery preserved in some manuscripts of John 7:53-8:11, a tradition that is not found in the best manuscripts of John.
‘Several passages from the early Church Fathers (e.g, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandraia, and others) claim to contain sayings of Jesus that may have come from authentic oral tradition. Papias (60-130), bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia , wrote a five-book Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord which aimed to bring together all the oral traditions, the “living and abiding voice” of Jesus, not reflected in Christian writings. This book is now lost, but it was quoted by Irenaeus in the second century and Eusebius in the fourth.”
The above quotations are from ‘Jesus outside the New Testament: an Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert E.Van Voorst’ pgs 180-181
Lastly David Wood makes a fatal error when he says:
“For purposes of our present discussion, it doesn’t matter whether the “Gospel” was one book, or four books, or twenty-two books, or twenty-seven books, or fifty million books. It doesn’t matter what verses are in the Gospel of Mark”
I really wonder if David Wood would be willing to extend that statement, ‘It doesn’t matter what verses are in the Gospel of John, or Luke or Matthew’.
If that is the case than you really wonder what David Wood’s whole point really is. I wonder if James White and/or Sam Shamoun would be willing to go out on a limb with David Wood on that one.
As I said I believe that Christian apologetic/polemic in regards to Islam is coming apart at the seams.
The presentation of David Wood, Sam Shamoun and James White are weak indeed.
When investigated with further scrutiny they are strong on rhetoric but short on evidences.
Conclusion:
The Qur’an talks about the Suhuf of Abraham, the Torah of Moses, the Zabur of David and the Injeel of Jesus.
The Qur’an does not tell us the contents of those revelations. That is not the objective of the Qur’an.
The purpose of the God is not to reveal the Suhuf, the Torah, The Zabur or the Injeel all over again.
The position of Muslims is not indifferent the Suhuf, the Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel.
However, the position of the Muslims is not to say that the Suhuf, the Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel is exactly what the various Christian and Jewish sects have in their possession today.
The position of the Muslims is also not to say that the Suhuf, the Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel is absolutely corrupted.
Though one of the early scholars of Islam is reported to have said:
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:
‘Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah,’ so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur'an) which has been revealed to you."
‘Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah,’ so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur'an) which has been revealed to you."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614; see also Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)
Qur’an 5:68
—Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”
This is what the Qur’an commands the People of the Book. That they not only judge by the Gospel, and the Law (which they know best what its contents are) and ‘and all the revelation’.
‘None of Our revelation (Ayats) do We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Are you not aware that God has power over all things?
(Holy Qur’an 2:106)
If the revelations of Allah (The Qur’an) is subject to the statement above it stands to reason that the same can be true of previous ayats (revelation).
“They are not all the same; among the People of the Book is a community standing, reciting the revelation (Ayats) of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating.
(Holy Qur’an 3:113)
Lastly the Christians themselves only have a presupposition, a belief in ‘original autographs’. They have people like Daniel Wallace frantically trying to collect funds to find more New Testament manuscripts. So they can know with 100% confidence and not simply faith what the Injeel of Jesus was.
For example ponder on what a Christian reviewer had to say concerning the debate between Bart Ehrman and James White:
“The evangelical textual critics say that textual variants don't matter. They repeat regularly that they don't matter. Ehrman points out the obvious. If they don't matter, then why is it that Wallace is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars running around cataloguing and photographing manuscripts? Good question. Ehrman asks in essence, "What does he tell his sponsors, those funding him? I'm doing all of this because it doesn't matter. Of course he doesn't tell them that, because they do matter! Why check for all the variants and look very carefully at all of them if they don't matter?" I agreed. The textual critics don't think that the text matter is settled. James White speculates that we've reached about as far as we can go in NT textual criticism, that is, unless we have another Dead Sea Scroll like find. So on the one hand, the evangelical textual critic says the variants don't matter and then on the other hand he is saying that they really, really do matter. Ehrman succeeded in the debate at showing, if one believes that a particular variant might be a part of the originals, that it really can change the meaning of the text.”
The above quote is taken from Kent Brandenburg at the following link:
Or take for example the very serious implications of the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1
This particular translation is accepted by Christians as a whole would bring them allot closer to Islam.
There is also another web site of Christians claiming that Matthew 28:19 is spurious.
You can see that here.
The Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Heremes which is not found in today’s New Testament. There are Christian groups that survive until this present day that does not accept Revelation, Jude, James 1st and 2nd Peter as canon.
Christians themselves have always disputed up until this present day what should be Biblical canon.
Than you have people like David Wood who says, “It doesn’t matter what verses are in the Gospel of Mark” Fine I agree with him! Throw out all the passages about Jesus being sent for trail and execution. Throw out all the passages that call Jesus ‘the son of God’. For that matter while it doesn’t matter what is in Mark, it shouldn’t matter what is in the Gospel of John either.
David Wood maybe willing to say this, but I think Christians who fear and love God who are in search of the truth do believe it matters what the contents of the Gospel are.
May Allah open the heart and mind of the Christians! May Allah guide them to what he loves! Ameen!
0 comments:
Post a Comment