The Middle East: A Perspective From the Ground

I’m going to take a quick break from the apologetics side of things and write today on my recent experiences and observations from living in Jordan for the summer. This might rattle a few cages, but that’s ok; the point is to get us thinking outside the Western box we live in every day. 

What do most people, especially Americans, think of when they hear the phrase “The Middle East”? Most people think of a region where violence and hatred abound, where there is no hope for peace, despite the best efforts of Presidents and Prime Ministers. Many of the people I have talked with denigrate the Muslims of The Middle East as “all terrorists” and that we should do away with them all. 

With all do respect to my fellow Americans, and Christians at that, there is not a more ignorant statement and saying such things truly makes you sound like a fool. 

Violence and Hatred: The Cycle

Let’s not mince words here, Arabs and Jews lived peacefully before the invasion of Jewish Zionists after the end of the second World War. The history of the “Palestinian Conflict” has been so tainted by pro-Israel rhetoric from our government and media that in order to find the truth we have to dig deep, because we will not get it in our day-to-day lives. Before I continue, a disclaimer: I am not anti-Jewish, a racist, or anti-Semite. How could I be, since the foundation of my Christian faith comes from the Jewish people? Jesus was Jewish, the apostles were Jewish, the prophets were Jewish, I adore their history and culture and have no agenda against them as a people. And before you say “You believe the Jews killed Jesus,” well, that is an extreme oversimplification of the Biblical account and rooted in anti-Christian rhetoric that is ignorant to its core. We can discuss that point at another time. 

Without giving everyone a history lesson, after the end of the second World War, the extreme militant Jewish Zionists were petitioning the world powers to give them a home of their own, and not just any home, but in Palestine. The official Western (British) support for a Jewish national state goes back to the Balfour Declaration of 1911 and became manifest after the Holocaust when the world felt that some reparations needed to be made for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people (unofficially, British support may go back farther than the 1911 declaration). Granted, this was important and I believe necessary because of the horrors of the Holocaust. However, because the British government was bankrupt after the war, and it was Churchill who had the closest ties with the wealthy Jewish community (see book: Churchill and the Jews), they were powerless to hold back the Zionists from invading Palestine and forcing out the Arab population, who had been living there in peace with other Jews for many years. 

The problem was not in allowing the Zionists their desired home, but in how they went about securing the land. There was a peaceful way to do it, but hatred for the Arabs, and indeed anyone not Jewish, prevailed and thousands of people were violently forced from their home en masse (suggested reading: Blood Brothers by Elias Chacour – an account of his life and his families trauma living through the Zionist’s invasion). This point in history is essentially the cause of the current Palestinian crisis that we now face in the Middle East. Most Arabs whom I spoke with in Jordan said they were “from Palestine,” even though they had never been there and in most cases weren’t even born there. 65% of Jordanian citizens are Palestinian refugees and hold deep grudges against the Israelis for their continued oppression of the Arab Palestinian people. Today, we are told that the Israeli government is defending itself from “terrorist” organizations, but the reality is they would not be defending themselves if their fathers and grandfathers had sought to procure the desired land in peace, rather than by force. Israel’s misappropriation of land has resulted in decades of violence, which is perpetrated more from the mind-set of being revolutionaries from the order of Che Guevara, rather than Islamic fundamentalists trying to reinstate the Caliphate.

This does not excuse the PLO and other extremist organizations from using people as bombs or targeting civilians for annihilation.  It certainly doesn’t excuse the leaders of these organizations from using Islam as a means to justify their agenda. But, for whatever reason the West has aligned itself with Israel, and the Palestinian people feel that they have been discarded as the scum of the Earth, with no one in a position of power agreeing to sympathize with their plight. Indeed, they have been painted as an inherently violent people whose only goal in life is to kill innocent life. The diaspora of Arabs to other areas of the Middle East is one of the primary contributing factors to the violence that continues there. 

The issue is much more complicated than I can hope to present here. However, I think at it’s core, the problems stem from Israel’s unwillingness to admit the mistake they made years ago, and the Arab’s unwillingness to forgive them for what they have done, seeking revenge at all costs. The problem is hatred on both sides. 

 

Putting Names to Faces

After spending time with the people in Jordan, I was amazed at how many stereotypes and assumptions I was forced to reconsider. These Muslims were not the blood-thirsty fundamentalists that the news media made them out to be. In fact, the men that I interacted with were some of the friendliest, most hospitable people that I’ve ever had the pleasure of interacting with. One of my students, a man named Basem, was a poet and writer who struggled with the identity of his people and with his faith as a Muslim. Basem was well-spoken, passionate about his opinions and wanted nothing more than to travel abroad to experience the world and show people that Osama bin-Laden does not speak for all Muslims. Basem was a tenderhearted man, and it was my pleasure getting to know him. 

My other students were not so different. One 18 year old named Mohammed would spend time with me after class, show me around the city, help me shop for food by translating and walking me to the best shops for what I wanted to buy, all at expense of his own time. Another student Jameel was very well educated and probably one of the smartest guys I’d met in my travels. We would have conversations with me on topics ranging from politics to Quantum Physics. Our conversations belied the fact that he didn’t even own a book bag but carried his texts in a plastic grocery bag. Nonetheless, he was more well tempered and seemingly content than most 22 year olds in the States who drive cars on their parent’s bill and have the opportunity to be educated in some of the world’s finest institutions. In fact, Jameel’s interest was not for monetary gain, women, or the things in life we are told will make us happy. Our conversations were always bent towards the pursuit of knowledge, spirituality, and things of an intangible nature – those priceless things that give rise to the beginnings of a spark in a person’s soul that leads to the unquenchable fire of faith and belief. 

My other experiences, too many to catalogue here, convinced me that these people, although Muslim, did not all desire the annihilation of the West. In fact, many of them made a point to tell me who did and did not speak for Islam and, for their faults, they treated me with more respect and hospitality than many of my Christian friends and acquaintances in America. 

What I want you to take away from this is, just as we are fond of pointing out that one cannot stereotype certain sub-cultures in America, one cannot stereotype the Muslim people. The tragedy of Islam is that it has been painted as the evil of all evils in our world today, but the efforts of a minority to wrest their religion from the masses for their own violent end should not make us susceptible to the indoctrination that inevitably follows. September 11th, the bombings in Britain and the unrest of the Muslim world that we see pictures on on TV and the internet are most evil atrocities, committed by men who have replaced the hopelessness in their hearts with utter hatred. There is no excuse for them, but we can no more write off 1.3 billion Muslims as “all terrorists”, any more than we did in the 1940′s with the Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Certainly, the forced quarantine of the Japanese is seen as one of the greatest domestic blunders during the advent of our involvement in the War.

All Muslims are not terrorists. One’s consideration that such a statement might be true exhibits his/her unwillingness to relinquish fears that detract from the safety and superiority that he/she desires to maintain. These are psychological games that have been played throughout the ages, from generation to generation, in order to raise one’s self-worth and image of his or her people group in one’s own mind. Reality is never as simple as we want it to be. Things exist in their current state due to long and often complicated processes that require time, effort and intelligence to understand. Perhaps more importantly, however, such understanding takes a spirit of patience and love. 

Let Us Let Go of our Dichotomistic Judgments

In general, there are two judgment types that people use to decide the character of a person or group: dichotomistic and holistic. Usually, these judgment types are learned on the social level, then filter down to the individual level and are usually unconscious in their processes (i.e. how many times do you say to yourself, “I think I will use holistic judgment today for this person”?). In the West, and America especially, we are very dichotomistic in our judgments of people and scenarios. Things tend to be very black and white for us. If a politician cheats on his taxes, he is a bad person and should be removed from office. If a co-worker you know commits adultery,  he is a worm and his wife should leave him immediately. If someone from your athletic club, church, or other social organization smokes, suddenly you might think there is something wrong with him or her and pass judgment without even knowing the person. Let’s consider the recent news about Dr. Bruce Ivins, who was the FBI’s top suspect for manufacturing and disseminating Anthrax days and weeks after the attacks on 9/11. Most people would say that, given the evidence, Ivins was a deranged, evil man and should be punished severely. These are examples of dichotomistic judgments. These types of judgments are quick and usually happen without much thought, or even knowing the person or situation: You hear something, pass judgment, and move on. 

On the other hand, some cultures use holistic judgments. Holistic judgments consider the whole person, the family background, their good and bad traits, their education level (based on the societal standards). Only after everything has been considered is judgment passed. A person’s singular vice in this case wouldn’t make a difference, because maybe he is from a respectable family, or serves at his church or is involved in some other activity which is noble and respected. Because of their nature, holistic judgments take longer to form and are prevalent in cultures where time orientation is not as developed, or perhaps, non-existent. 

Both of these judgment types have their pros and cons. Dichotomistic judgments tend to be to quick and people who pass these judgments have typically not thought through everything. However, there are scenarios when these judgments are necessary, as in war. In scenarios where someone has broken the law, let’s say a senator who has been soliciting prostitution, that senator should be punished based on the laws of the land, and his family background should hold no bearing on the outcome of the judgment. However, where dichotomistic judgments fail is that it allows little room for forgiveness and reconciliation. If this person has this one thing wrong, the whole person is tainted. Holistic judgments may be fairer, but sometimes people do not have time to judge holistically. Police officers, for example, who need to respond to a situation quickly and decisively, would not be very just to consider that person’s family background as evidence for acquittal. But, if you tend to think that all people who smoke are bad and gross, perhaps you need to reevaluate the values you use to pass judgment. The person in question may be a brilliant scientist, talented musician, or prolific writer. Holistic judgments must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, since a person might have many good traits but come from a questionable family background. In order to protect ourselves and our children, we must (as Scripture says) be wise as serpents, discerning the good from th evil.  Indeed, we must “walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise.”  However, we must also be innocent as doves and understand remove the plank from our own eyes before worrying about the speck in our brother’s or sister’s eyes. 

What does any of this have to do with the Middle East and Arab people? My point in saying all of this is to highlight the fact that we have unknowingly judged all of the Arab people based on the actions of extremists and fundamentalists. It has gone so far that when we might see a Muslim American with her head covered in our shopping malls, we stare at her with suspicion. Or, if we see a Muslim man praying in an airport, we automatically fear him and hold him in contempt. Or worse, if we hear Arabic being spoken on our streets, we associate it with the videos we have seen on the internet or Television from Al-Qaida or the Taliban. Never-mind the fact that Arabic is one of the last surviving Semitic languages and is thousands of years old, if Osama bin-Laden speaks it, it must be an evil language. 

I titled this section “Let Us Let Go of our Dichotomistic Judgments”, not because I think that those judgments are inherently bad – they are necessary in some scenarios – but because we almost have to make an attempt to judge completely holistically if we are to consciously work that into our framework for overall judgment. As Americans, we will never be able to let go of our tendency for dichotomistic judgments, they are part of our unconscious psyche. But, perhaps, with some effort, we can put a little more thought into the reasons we think certain things about certain people, and make sure that our reasoning is sound. 

Ultimately, as Christians (if you are not one, this will mean nothing to you), we are commanded by Christ to “not judge, lest you be judged”, but, I want to look at this in context, since this verse if often misunderstood and misapplied. Jesus is not saying “don’t ever judge situations or the character of a person for yourself.” Of course, doing so is prudent at times and necessary if we are to live our lives as best as we possibly can. If someone you might be spending time with is a drug addict, or spends money frivolously, or something else, there is nothing wrong with “judging” that situation for what it is and deciding for yourself if you should be there. If your friend, or loved one, is doing something that you know he or she shouldn’t be doing, confronting the person in love and humility is certainly biblical. So, what is it that Christ is saying here? 

We find this verse in Matthew 7:1. Jesus is getting ready to wrap up his famous Sermon on the Mount and has finished talking about giving to the needy, prayer, fasting, storing up treasures in heaven and not worrying (Chapter 6). There is a theme in Chapter 6 that I think is building up to Chapter 7, one involving hypocricy. At least three times in my NIV does the word “hypocrite” occur in Chapter 6, in the context of Jesus telling his followers to not be like them (the hypocrites). He speaks of storing up treasures in heaven and seeking first the Kingdom of God, not worrying about material possessions. Jesus is trying to focus his audience’s attention on what is truly important,  that it is the heart that matters, not necessarily what you do. Although, what you do is obviously of consequence, when it comes to your standing before God, your heart and intentions are what must be pure: your actions are simply the outworking of what is in your heart. After all, in Matthew 12 Christ tells us “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”We can go back to the beginning of the Sermon, with the Beatitudes, to find this theme emerging, and continuing with Christ’s anti-thesis statements in 5:21-48 (“You have heard it said…but I tell you…”). Jesus is thus deepening the understanding of the Old Testament Law to include not only what is done, but what is thought and intended. In 6:1-18, the overall theme is “do not be like the hypocrites who do things out in the open for everyone to see to gain their approval and prove how ‘good’ they are” (I’m paraphrasing). Reading the whole passage makes it clear what kind of judging Jesus is talking about, and perhaps the reason it follows 5 and 6 directly is as a warning to his followers to not be like the hypocrites in how they judge, especially since they have been given insight from the very Son of God himself. This is a warning to all the would-be self-righteous of the world and (if I’m reading too much into this, I apologize) what we can infer from Chapter 6 that hypocrites are the ones who judge others in this way, without “taking the plank out of their own eye”. 

The type of judgment that is in view here is the kind that judges another person’s character in the present and future. In other words, the entire person is written off completely and wholly, now and forever, because of the “speck of dust” in his eye. There is no room for forgiveness, or for the person or people group to be granted grace by the judgers. Christians are guilty of this, but don’t fool yourself, so are those who are not so-called “religious.” What is called “self-righteous” in religious circles is called “elitism” in secular circles.  There is no area of life that is immune to this disease, it just manifests itself differently with each person’s different set of values and criteria for judging. 

Therefore, I return to my original point that even though we are called to use discretion and wisdom when dealing with people and situations, we are to not judge them as discussed above. My challenge to all who read this is to find out for yourself what these people are truly like, especially if you are Christian and desire to walk in the way that Christ commanded us. There are plenty of opportunities, even in America, to interact with our Muslim neighbors. Until you actually do it, you will remain in fear and continue to write off the whole of their people and religion in ignorance. 

 

Islam and The Doctrine of Biblical Corruption

The claim that the Bible is corrupted is one that Muslims make often, especially in conversation with Christian friends, who are assuming the authority and inerrancy of Scripture and argue from that standpoint. Although the Qur’an upholds scripture and points all Muslims to the prophets and “people of the book”, the many discrepancies found between the Bible and Qur’an must be explained. From the Muslim point of view, it must be the Bible that is in error, since the Qur’an is the last and final revelation from Allah, pure and perfect in content. Thus, the doctrine of tahrif, or “corruption”, was developed. 

Before I continue, it is important to note that scholarly debate regarding the Qur’an, within Islam’s own ranks, is strictly forbidden and not recognized. Thus, there has been no public forums submitting to academia and scholars of the world the content of the Qur’an for scrutiny. Sheikhs are not taught the tools of hermeneutics, exegesis, or any of the lingual, higher critic, literary and contextual tools that Christian and secular scholars use in interpreting, analyzing and criticizing the Bible. There is, as far as I know, no literature at all that has to do with the historical accuracy of the Qur’an, based on the aforementioned methods. Yet, Muslim scholars are comfortable in approaching the Bible with such methods, and to demand that the world do the same, when they have never done it with their own holy book. Thankfully, Christians are not so protective and history has proved again and again that the inerrancy of Scripture stands the test of academia, especially in the realm of the various forms of higher critics. But, we don’t have time to get into that now – although, I would be happy to in another post. 

As I have said, the Qur’an upholds scripture in many places. Here are a few examples: 

Sura 5:44 – 46: “It was We [Allah] who revealed the Law to Moses: therein was guidance and light. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light.

Sura 5:68: “Say, O People of the Book [Jews and Christians] 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.”

Sura 10:94: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee”.

Sura 29:46: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better.”

I would like to post every single instance where these occur, and perhaps I will as an auxiliary post to this one. 

When encountered with this argument, it is best to ask the following questions: Who, What, When, Where and Why? I will go through these categorically below, starting with what I feel is the most important one:

1. When: If the Bible is truly corrupted, when was it corrupted? Was it before Mohammed had begun his ministry, or after? If the answer is before, then problems begin to mount, for why would Mohammed testify to a Scripture that is corrupt? Or, why would Allah allow the Qur’an to disseminate false information, going so far even to tell Muslims that they should look to the recipients of the original books, when those books had been corrupted? If the answer is after Mohammed’s death, then there are even more questions (see below). 

2. Who – Old Testament: What is now referred to as the Old Testament was already compiled and recognized as inspired Scripture during the time of Christ. The Septuagint, which had been developed for the sake of Hellenized Jews, was already in circulation. So, for a Muslim to argue that the Old Testament was corrupted, he would have to argue that it was done some time before the time of Christ, that all extant source texts were altered in agreement with all the Jewish scholars of the day, before the meeting in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, that resulted in the Septuagint, and that Mohammed testified to a corrupt Old Testament. It is difficult to imagine all the Jewish scholars agreeing to change their sacred texts, as well as the copies, and to circulate these changes in the Septuagint. Nothing in history indicates that anything on this scale happened. Imagine the violence and uprisings among the Jews who would have caught wind of this. And, if you think it could have been carried out in secret, you don’t think the Jews would have noticed the changes to their sacred stories that had been passed down to them, unchanged throughout the centuries? Blood would have run in the streets if something on this scale was attempted, to corrupt and change the ancient scriptures, yet, nothing like this ever occurred. 

3. Who – New Testament: It would be very easy for me to start discussing here the formation of what we now know as the New Testament canon, but for the sake of this discussion I will use broad strokes to build the argument: 

 

• Gospels: From my studies and discussions with professors and Biblical scholars, the evidence for early dating of the compositions of the Gospels is in favor, rather than later dates. For example, Matthew is thought to have been composed before AD 70, because there is no discussion, or even allusion to, the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew has been traditionally understood as being written to a Jewish audience, so it would stand to reason that something as catastrophic as the destruction of their holy city would be of note in the composition of his Gospel. Mark, thought to be the first Gospel, was most likely written around AD 64, during the Neronic persecution. The reason this is important is because the early dates make us realize that these authors were very close to the events of Christ’s ministry and had access to eye witnesses, as well as even earlier written sources, that would assist them in the composition of their Gospels. 
• Formation of Canon: All of the major writings of the New Testament, i.e. the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, were accepted by the Christian community by the middle of the 2nd century. There was some debate regarding other books that are now included in the canon, i.e. Jude and Hebrews, which would not be decided until later, however the bulk of writings was accepted. The writings of Paul were in circulation by the end of the 1st century and in the beginning of the 2nd century Justin Martyr refers to “The memoirs of the Apostles”. In AD 367, the Bishop of Alexandria listed the 27 books that would eventually form the closed canon years later. In later councils, the church leaders were not making new definitions or claims of what the canon should be, but were affirming and ratifying what it already was. 
• Implications: Although this is brief, my goal is to simply shed light on the fact that early on, after the ministry of Jesus, and within the lifetime of people who witnessed his works and listened to his words, there were documents composed and circulated to the larger Near East that testified to what happened. The Gospel writers had sources, written as well as oral, that saw what happened. Mark is even thought to have received much of his information directly from Peter, as recorded by a statement by Papius in the 2nd century, who received his information directly from John. If the claim is the the Gospels were corrupted, then either they would have had to been corrupted during their writing, or after, when there were already copies made and in circulation. However, one who claims that the Gospels were corrupted during their composition would have to contend with the fact that the Gospels, especially the Synoptics, agree in so many places with what Jesus said and did. Even though some Gospels include some stories that others might omit, none of them contradict the other – that is, they do not meet the criteria of the law of noncontradiction (something cannot be A and not A at the same time). Although many people like to criticize the Bible and Gospels for contradicting, they do not understand that having more or less information is not a contradiction, but simply a matter of having more or less information. If the Gospels were corrupted after they were composed, then there is the problem of who would have done it. Churches and groups of people were in possession of the Gospels early on and the explosion and expansion of the early church during the 1st and 2nd century was like a wild fire in the Near East region and beyond. How would a group of people come together to change the documents, the Gospels and Epistles, come to an agreement about how they should be corrupted, then carry it out without the knowledge of the Christian community?

    4.  What: I have already addressed this question in the above points, but essentially, the question is what was corrupted? Was it original texts, or the later copies? Both present obvious difficulties, as discussed above. 

5.   Where: Would the texts have been corrupted in the early Ecumenical councils? Or in secret, perhaps in a cave somewhere? Again, how does a group of people come together to agree to change all of the extant source texts and copies that were in the hands of the larger population?  What does the logistics of that look like and how could something like that be carried out, in secret, unbeknownst to the people and annals of history? Not to mention that we have source texts and copies today that all agree with each other in form and content, with some minor variances in perhaps an added story, or word, that does not appear in other earlier sources. But, none of this amounts to the Muslim claim of total and complete corruption: the complete change of scripture and changing the stories so much so that the doctrine and confessions of the church would be grounded on them. Then, we also have the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, much of which is inter-testamental writing of eschatological and Messianic expectations of the Essenes, i.e. non-canonical, but we also have items, such as the recovery of a copy of a scroll of Isaiah, that matches almost word for word with current extant copies of the day.  

6.   Why: The above ultimately leads to the question, why would anyone want to corrupt the scriptures in such a way? What interests would be served by changing the teachings of Christ, or of the Old Testament, so that they present even more difficulties, rather than being simplified? The doctrines of Christian belief, such as the dual nature of Christ, his sacrifice for the sins of man, the virgin birth, the Trinity, not to mention the overarching story of redemption as progressively revealed throughout the Old Testament and culminating in Christ, are so counter-intuitive to anything we as humans could imagine to be true that one would think if they were actually changed, they would have been simplified, not made more confusing. In any case, none of this answers the question, why? Did the Apostles, or early Church fathers have something to gain by corrupting scripture? Most of the Apostles were martyred and suffered violent persecution and death for the things they proclaimed to the world. If they knew what they preached to be a lie, why didn’t they recant when threatened. One would think, when blade is set to neck, or when the hammer is set to the head of a spike about to be driven into your arms and legs, you would have no problem in recanting your beliefs if you know you are lying to the world. Some might argue that the church fathers, or early Ecumenical councils had power to gain; however, the power that manifested itself in the later Roman Catholic Church resulted in the Protestant Reformation and a return to sola scriptura, among other things. In other words, what the Roman Catholic church was doing and teaching was not biblical. Christ is our intercessor and all power and glory is given to him in the Holy book. If the content of scripture was corrupted for the gain of power, then why would have Christ’s teaching, his authoritative claims and commands, have been maintained? Further, there is so much of the Old Testament in Christ, his fulfillments of prophecies, his deeds and words, that had direct reference back to the pages of Isaiah, Daniel, the books of Moses, etc., that it is hard to imagine that any corruption could have taken place, while keeping the multitude of these fulfillments intact.

 

Ok, I think that is good enough for this post. There is nothing within the Doctrine of Corruption that is academic and empirical. The claim is not based on any kind of scholarship and is simply something thrown around by those who have no other answer to the reason the Qur’an and Bible disagree on vital issues. In addition, it is arrogant to make such a claim on a book that has been “put through the ringer” so-to-speak, in terms of the amount of criticism that it has undergone, and withstood, when their own holy text has not been through even the slightest amount of scholarly critique. What’s more, when something of that nature might be suggested, it is met with stiff resistance and sometimes violent rhetoric. 

Islam and Christianity: Differences and Similarities

 

If you’ve never studies Islam before, you might be surprised to find that in many places it agrees with Christianity. In fact, some less educated Muslims, and Christians for that matter, most of whom I have encountered overseas,  will make comments that there is really no difference between the two faiths. Of course, this is completely inaccurate and Islam departs from Christianity on several major issues. The attempt at saying “We are really the same, we believe in the same God, in Jesus”, etc., is more of a shallow attempt at so-called religious “tolerance” than anything else. Which, in essence, means “Let’s just get along and not worry about what you, or I, really believe.” Contrary to the argument that if you cared about your neighbor, who might be different than you in race, religion, and so-on, you would not care what he or she believed; if one truly thinks about it, isn’t that more of an insult, than taking the time to find out what someone believes and why they believe it? If someone says, “I don’t care what you believe…”, how is that less offensive than “I know what you believe and have taken the time to study and discover where we part ways in the confessions of our faith”? Knowing what your Muslim neighbor believes is not mutually exclusive to remaining their friend, and the other way around. However, staying in the isolation chamber of ignorance for the sake of tolerance is what we have been sold: that the best way to engage those around us is to actually not engage (ever wonder why it is impolite to talk about religion and politics? Whatever happened to the continuing of the “great debate”, as it were. No, never mind that, let’s turn on Sunday afternoon football, or the latest non-reality TV show, and use escapism to forget about those things that we know are most important). I wonder what that says about humanity and our natural tendencies? When we have come to a point when the only supposed way to remain in a peaceful existence is to remain in ignorance, to “not care”, and hope that we can all get along in the end. 

In any case, enough of that. I have listed the similarities and differences together, since when discussing where they are the same, it becomes immediately apparent where they are different. 

1. Belief in One God: The obvious and most important aspect of both faiths is their monotheism. In Arabic, “Allah” simply means God. Not a special type of god, but the One God. Christians use the same name for God in those Arabic speaking countries, so the name of “Allah” is not used only in a Muslim context (however, to avoid confusion, I will use “Allah” to designate the Muslim concept of God). Muslims believe that God is one, eternal, transcendent and that there is none like him. He is the revealer of the right ways and by his compassion and mercy, reveals his will to humankind. Sounds similar to the God of our scriptures, right? There are several differences that must be understood:

 

• Allah does not himself condescend to humanity. His word is revealed through angels, usually the angel Gabriel, and the direct reception of the books by the prophets. There is no human element in the composing of the books. It was as if they floated down from heaven, directly to the prophet who received them. 
• Allah only reveals his will, but nothing can be known of his character. In the Qur’an, Allah is described by many names, compassionate, merciful, just, and on and on. But, nothing is said of his holiness or righteous, or immutable nature. Our God is a God of covenants and promises, however, there is nothing like that in Islam. Indeed, all that has been revealed by Allah is what humanity must do in order for us to attain paradise, not what he will do in order to assist us in reaching that goal (because it is assumed that man can do it on his own). 
• The doctrine of the Trinity is viewed as the worship of three Gods. Because God is one, and he “begetteh not”, there is no understanding of God, one in substance, three in persons. More on this later, since the Trinity is a heavy topic anyways. 

2. Belief in the Prophets and in Jesus: Muslims believe in Jesus, or as they know him, Issa. The Qur’an upholds Issa as the greatest of all prophets, next to Mohammed, and that he preformed many wonderful works and deeds while he was alive. They believe that he was born of the Virgin Mary as well. However, that is about the extent of the similarities. Here is where they are different:

 

• In Islam, the greatest sin is to attribute any partners to God. Muslims believe that for Christians to say that Jesus was “God’s Son” is to say that Allah had consort with Mary so that she might have a son. Of course, this is a disgusting idea for Christians as well, but this is what Muslims are taught. 
• Because of the above point, Jesus is understood to be only a man, not divine. Muslims cannot fathom God becoming man, because Allah is so transcendent and pure that he would never take on human flesh. He was a prophet, nothing more. Prophets are mere men who have been shown the right path by Allah’s mercy. 
• Issa did not die on the cross, but there was a man put in his place, in his likeness, and Issa was taken up to heaven. Some authors on this subject have commented that this was written into the Qur’an in a misguided attempt by Mohammed to honor Jesus, for how noble is it for a prophet to be executed as a criminal? Since he never died, he never rose from the dead. 

3. Belief in the Bible: This one is not really a similarity, since most Muslims believe the Bible has been corrupted. Rather, they believe what the Qur’an says about the Bible, its books and prophets. If you think about it, the problems with this, coupled with their doctrine of biblical corruption becomes clear. But, I will discuss it at length later on. However, they certainly do not believe the Bible, as it is today, to be the inspired Word of God. 

Essentially, the similarities all break down when they are viewed with more detail. Below are some more differences that hold no similarities to Christian belief:

1. View of Human Nature: Muslims believe that all men are born essentially good and that there is no such thing as Original Sin. By remaining on the right path, a Muslim can stay good, or divert and become bad. The Muslim definition of sin is also very different than ours. I recall an overseas worker friend of mine telling me a story as he was studying the Qur’an and the Bible with 4 Muslim friends. After they had concluded that Adam and Even did “sin” and that God was gracious enough to make adequate coverings for their shame, several days later they were discussing something else and my friend brought up the point of Adam’s sin. One of the Muslims commented, “O, but Adam did not sin, he only did what was forbidden.” I was undoubtedly as confused as you are about that statement. I’m still not sure what to think of it. In the end, one is able, by good works, to be good enough to off-set the balance in his favor on the day of judgement. There is no need for grace or salvation by Allah. 

2. The need for salvation: By extension of humans not being sinful, and sin being understood as mere actions, not a condition of the heart, Muslims do not believe in the necessity of salvation from our nature. It should be noted, also, that because sin is understood as actions that can be negated by good actions, it is difficult for Muslims to understand the efficaciousness of Jesus dying on the cross for actions that can be simply remedied by acting “better”. When the Qur’an uses titled for Jesus, such as “Messiah”, “Spirit of God”, or “Word of God”, there is no hermeneutical or historical understanding of what these words mean in the context of scripture. 

4. Dual Nature of Christ and the Trinity: These are difficult doctrines, to be sure, especially since they deal with supernatural things and orders that contradict the natural order of our world. We have no frame of reference to understand how something can be A and B at the same time. In fact, to even speak of it in terms of A and B, or A, B, and C is misleading, because the truth is that the thing always remains A, never being different from itself, being of one substance. Needless to say, it is understandable how Muslims have come to understand the Trinity as 3 Gods instead of the One unchangeable God. However, it remains that the inference drawn from scripture here is clear and that the Muslim view is the simpler of the two. Simply, the Muslim view maintains that worship of a Trinity is worship of 3 separate gods and that it was impossible for Jesus to be both divine and man, because Allah would never have taken on human flesh. 

 

That’s it in brief. Again, not an exhaustive account, but a good overview for what we will discuss next. My next posting will discuss the Muslim doctrine of corruption of the Bible and why it cannot hold water. Although it might be a claim easy to refute, it needs to be understood for the furthering of our discussion, since all Muslims come from the standpoint that the Bible is corrupted and use that as a starting point when thinking or considering Christianity. 

Islam: basic tenants of belief

I have tried to list and briefly explain the fundamental beliefs of the Muslim faith. There may be more, but these form what I believe and have read are the cornerstone of Islamic thought. My goal here is to simply outline the basic beliefs, not to offer any defense or to draw attention to any errors in thinking, or to state how Islam and Christianity are different. This is also not an exhaustive account of everything a Muslim believes. This is only an extremely quick overview, so there are some details that may be missed. If so, it is simply because I do not have the time, or knowledge, to offer categorical and exhaustive accounts. If you want that, I suggest the library, book store, or perhaps some resources on the internet, if reputable. 

BASIC BELIEFS

1. There is no god but God (Allah): During the time of Mohammed the prophet, Arabia was full of idolatry and paganism. Mecca was host to pilgrims who would travel from far away to pay homage to their gods and goddesses, whose image resided in the Ka’aba. Mohammed preached against idolatry and proclaimed that God is One and to attribute partners to Allah is the greatest offense against him. In Sura 112 of the Qur’an, these words are written and recited by Muslims in their daily prayers: “Say He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah the Eternal, Absolute; he begetteth not, not is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.” Thus, the complete unity of Allah is established in Muslim thought and to say that he begot a son (Jesus) is blasphemy. More on this later when we talk about the differences between Islam and Christianity. 

2. Mohammed is the seal of the prophets: Muslims believe that throughout history, Allah has sent humanity prophets to reveal his will and set humankind on the right path. Although the number of prophets ranges from 124,000 to 144,000, depending on the sect in Islam we are speaking of, the great prophets include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Prophets are not divine, but are considered to be sinless, since how would it be possible for a sinful man to proclaim Allah’s truth to other sinful men? Muslims consider Jesus to be a very great prophet, in fact the greatest next to Mohammed, who is the supreme personality in Muslim thought and literature. As the “Seal of the Prophets”, Mohammed’s example is to be followed in all of life and his teaching supersedes the teaching of prior prophets: from care of one’s beard to what one eats. Since Mohammed brought Arabia the message, “No god but God”, and effectively united the Arab people through his subsequent preaching, journey to Madina and successful campaigns on the pagan world (which spread to the larger world after his death), he is revered almost as a messianic figure; even though, Muslims stop short of affirming he is in fact a messiah, his status is none-the-less elevated to the greatest prophet and, indeed, to insult Mohammed is equal to insulting Allah himself in terms of reaction from the Muslim community. 

3. Belief in the Books of God: It is thought that each prophet was given a book from God, which came down directly from heaven, and the prophet would reveal to the world what was written in the book. Each book would abrogate the one before it; thus, Islam’s affirmation that the Qur’an is the final book and abrogates all that disagrees with it in the Bible. More on the obvious problems on this doctrine later. The Qur’an makes references to at least four other books, besides itself, as being from Allah: The Torat (the books of Moses), The Suhuf (books of the prophets), Zabur (Psalms of David), and the Injil (Gospels). It is important to note that Muslims believe that the books are the very words of Allah and there is no human element in the composing of these books. They are dictated to the prophets by the messengers of Allah, usually the angel Gabriel. 

4. Belief in God’s Angels: God created a host of angels, of different ranks, to do his will, watch over and intercede for believers. The four named archangels are Gabriel (God’s chief messenger), Michael, Izrail the Angel of Death, and Israfil. In the Qur’an, Gabriel is also referred to as the “Holy Spirit” and the “Illustrious messenger endued with power.” Because Allah is too lofty to speak directly to man, he sends Gabriel to do his bidding and bring man his word. Sura 19:17 agrees with the Bible in that it was Gabriel who appeared to the Virgin Mary to proclaim the news of her having a son. 

5. Judgement: Muslims believe in a day of judgement, the “last day”, where all living and non-living things will be judged based on what they have done. On this day, the record of ones deeds will be opened and his good works and bad works will be placed on a “scale”. If the good works outweigh the bad, he will be admitted into paradise. Eternal punishment is saved for those who have ascribed equals to God, while Muslims may suffer a time in hell proportionate to their sin, but can be delivered at a later time. All Muslims hope that their good deeds will outweigh their bad on the Allah’s cosmic judgment scale. 

THE 5 PILLARS OF ISLAM: Obligatory Practices

The 5 pillars of Islam refers to those practices one must do in order to be Muslim. Without these things, one might not be considered a practicing Muslim and only be giving lip service to his faith. 

1. Confession of Faith or Shahada: This is regularly repeated by Muslims, “There is no deity (or God) but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger (or prophet).” Muslim scholars believe that reciting this before two witnesses makes a person Muslim. The recitation of this confession is common, from the minaret’s call to daily prayer, to the beds of sleeping children by the lips of their mothers. 

2. Ritual Prayer or Salat: The call to prayer goes out 5 times a day and this is the number of times that a Muslim is to engage in the practice. Prayer can be attended to anywhere, provided that the ritual washing and motions are adhered to, but Friday is the Muslims official day of worship, and all – especially the men – are expected to attend the mosque for midday prayer. Women can also attend the mosque, provided there is a separate section available where they can pray away from the view of the men. 

3. Alms Giving or Zakat: These are obligatory alms given to the poor and needy. Zakat is distinguished from voluntary alms giving, which is above and beyond what is required by Muslim law. The amount to give is calculated by a complex formula stipulated by Muslim law, based on certain criteria. 

4. Ramadan or Saum: The month of Ramadan is marked by fasting: abstaining from food, drink and sexual intercourse during the daylight hours. At nightfall, a large meal will usually be prepared and they will stay up late to eat, then rise again before dawn for another meal. At the end of the month, there is a celebration with great feasting and giving gifts.  

5. Pilgrimage to Mecca or Hajj: Obligatory once in a lifetime, the Hajj traces the steps of Mohammed after his exile to Madina, upon his return to Mecca. Each year, millions of pilgrims embark on the journey, which if taken in full lasts about 40 days. The most famous part of the Hajj is when the pilgrims reach the Ka’aba stone and walk around it 7 times. Those who successfully complete the Hajj are highly regarded when they return home and can even impart some of their newly acquired righteousness to friends and family members. Muslims can travel on the Hajj as many times as they want, if they are adults, and the more one makes the pilgrimage, the better his chances are in being granted access to paradise during the Judgment. 

 

That’s it for this post. Coming up next, I will outline some of the differences and similarities between Christianity and Islam. 

Peace…

Introduction

Dear friends, 

Many of you know of my interest in matters of Christian theology and apologetics, and how they relate to our American society, as well as to other world religions — particularly Islam and Judaism. Another interest of mine that I have began to explore in detail is on the doctrines and teachings of Islam. What do Muslims believe, how does it differ from Christianity and what are some of the arguments Muslim scholars are using against Christianity (and what are our rebuttals)? I have read several primers on Islam by Christian authors, but have done little research into what Muslims say of the Christian faith, and of their own faith. My preliminary readings on the subject, two books by Muslim author and scholar Maulana Muhammed ‘Ali titled Muhammed and Christ and The Prophets, respectively, have been interesting and challenging. As I read, and continue to read, I felt the need to better understand the polemics of both sides and burn them into my mind so that I could summon them whenever I needed. I also felt a great need for my fellow Christian brothers and sisters to be aware of the issues, since Islam is such a force in the world that it cannot rightly be ignored, especially by our community (being the largest religion in number, second only to Christianity). In addition, Islam’s doctrines, theology, and creeds can seem formidable to anyone who has not taken the time to search out the truth. Indeed, the 1400 or so years of thought have led to apologetics that could take one off-guard, either in daily interactions with Muslims, or through light observation of world and domestic news stories. Study is needed, in order to be equipped and prepared to defend Christianity. Not only that, but in wrestling with difficult questions and putting to the test the claims of our scriptures, we are admonished and strengthened in our faith. I believe we will see, as we have throughout the ages, that Christianity and the Word of God stands the test of the world’s challenges and skepticism again and again. To that end, as I journey down this road of knowledge and discovery, I hope that you would travel with me, interacting through this medium, to let “iron sharpen iron”, so that we are prepared for the difficulties to come and to truly know what it is we profess and believe.