Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Islam: a contradiction to reason and logic and evidence

A Muslim asked "Why are Christians allowed to defend Christianity in a presuppositional way, but Muslims are not allowed to do the same?

You can try to do so; but it is contradictory to logic, because Islam claims to be the fulfillment of the OT and NT and comes more than 5 Centuries after the NT events, and yet, contradicts the teachings of the Bible, therefore, Islam is proven wrong.

Simple answer: Because Islam came almost 600 years later; yet contradicts the Bible in key areas. Because Islam has no historical evidence to back up its claims that it is a fulfillment of the OT and NT; yet claims to affirm the OT and the NT, and yet contradicts what the OT and NT teach.

The Jews of the NT - Jesus and His disciples/apostles were steeped in the OT and quoted from it extensively.
The Arabs and Muhammad did not quote from the OT (there is one allusion; Qur'an 5:45), and did not know much of the content of the NT, called the "Injeel" (a corrupted form of the word, "Evangel".) (except that it existed, and was the revelation/message of Jesus, and that Jesus had faithful disciples who were honest; and that Jesus was Al Masih (The Messiah), virgin born, and did miracles, and is the son of Mary.

Jay Smith demonstrates that the Bible does not refer to Muhammad, the founder of Islam, even though the Muslims are forced to try to find him in the previous Scriptures, the Torah (The law of Moses; Arabic - Taurat تورات) and the Injeel انجیل (Gospel), because of 2 verses in the Qur'an. (Surah 7:157; Surah 61:6). See more in this series from Jay Smith, highlighted by AnsweringMuslims.com.

Surah 7:157
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." (Sahih International Version)

Surah 61:6
"And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic." (Sahih International Version.) See here for the Arabic and English.

The 3 main passages Muslims use to try and claim that Muhammad is prophesied there, are:

1. Deuteronomy 18:15 - this one is very clear in the immediate context of chapter 17 and 18, that the prophet who will come in the future will be a Jew, an Israelite.

"The Lord your God will raise up for a prophet like me, from among your own brothers (same word as "countrymen" in 17:14-15) . . . " Deut. 18:15 (see also Deut. 18:2, "brothers")


(from among your brothers.) ( I cannot figure out how to put the vowel pointing in, but anyone with a Bible original language software program can see it, and perhaps the Hebrew is on the web somewhere.)

“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman." Deuteronomy 17:14-15

The context is so clear here, it should be embarrassing for Muslims to try and use this.

Jesus fulfilled Deut. 18:15 in Acts 3:22.

2. Song of Solomon 5:16 - Jay did a good job of defeating that; the context, beginning in verse 10, is Solomon's bride/lover/wife in Jerusalem, talking about Solomon, her beloved. Dr. White also proved this Muslim apologetic method wrong some time ago.

3. John chapters 14 and 16, and the Greek word, παρακλητος (parakletos)

On the Greek word, "parakletos" in John 14:16-17; 14:26; and John 16:7, with 16:12-15, it helps to have a visual of the Greek word in question.

παρακλητος - the true Greek word in the text. "helper", "counselor", "comforter"

περικλυτος - the word the Muslims claim was originally there in Greek. In order to Muslims to make it work, they have to change 3 key letters of the word. Jay Smith makes a great point that in Arabic, it is a consonantal language, the verbs are sounds in between the letters and most of the time, they are not even written. The Muslim apologists, many times, try to equate Greek with Arabic and say that the vowels in Greek could have been different. They are using an Arabic language characteristic and imposing it upon the Greek language.

John 14:16-17
"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you."

"Helper" - is the translation of the Greek, παράκλητον - the accusative form (the accusative is the object of the verb "to give", and in Greek the accusative form changes the last letter in this word in order to show that it is the object of the verb) from παράκλητος (nominative, dictionary form).

"But the Helper, 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 said to you." (John 14:26)

Reasons why it makes no sense for Muslims to use John 14 and 16 and the word "parakletos" to try and prove their apologetic.

1. There is no manuscript evidence and no textual variant of this word in John 14 or 16, so for Muslims to just make up the changes in the three letters is a massive problem, and many times downright deceptive. Parakletos means "the one called alongside" to help or comfort or advocate for; "the comforter", "the helper", "the counselor". The Greek word does not mean "praised one" or "glorious one". (I don't understand Jay Smith saying it means "glorious one", when "Ahmad" احمد (another form of Mohammad- محمد , "the praised one" - you can see the root, hmd, حمد , which means "praise" in Arabic.) in the Qur'an 61:6 means "praised one".

2. The parakletos is "the Spirit of truth" who will be in you. Obviously, this is about the Holy Spirit who would baptize believers and indwell the disciples and all believers (John 7:37-39). It cannot be about Muhammad, because Muhammad is in no sense "in" them. The fulfillment of this is clear in Acts chapter 2 and explained in John 7:37-39 and I Corinthians 6:19-20; 12:13, Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30 . It cannot be about Muhammad, who was a human coming almost 600 years later, he was not a spirit.

3. Muhammad does not "abide with them".
4. Muhammad cannot be with the disciples "forever".
5. Muhammad came into existence 570 years after the birth of Christ, so the promise makes so sense for the disciples of Jesus at all, much less for other Christians.
6. Muhammad is not a spirit, but a man.
7. Muhammad does not glorify Jesus in the way that the NT means.
8. Muhammad was not sent from "the Father". Muslims object to even calling God, "Father". (Surah 112)

The Presupposition that the Bible is true and the God of the Bible is true conforms to reason and logic. A presupposition needs to make sense; and be in conformity to truth and not contradict evidence, or its own claims. Islam makes no logical sense, since it claims to be a third stage in revealed religions, and that Muhammad came to complete Judaism and Christianity. Islam makes no sense, since Muhammad cannot be the "parakletos", the Helper, the comforter of John 14 and 16. Islam makes no sense, since it affirms the OT and the NT (Surah 2:136; 5:46-48; 5:68; 10:94; 29:46); yet contradicts the content of those same Scriptures. And Islam makes no sense, because it flatly denies the crucifixion and death of Jesus (Surah 4:157); one of the most accepted historical facts of history; and something that even skeptic unbelievers like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman affirm as historical fact.


Rocky2 said...

(Dear Beggars, I saw this on the web. Reactions?]

Islam will "purify" Jews and Christians !

Islam, part of the Living River of History, can affect even the 2012 US election!
The "headwaters" of this River was Adam, according to Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc .
In the OT (Deut. 28), "tributaries" wanting to join the River will be blessed while "distributaries" who want to flow away from it will be cursed. Those wishing to totally separate from the fresh Living River will end up as polluted, dying "oxbow lakes."
In the OT we see Israelites repeatedly flowing away from God, then repenting and returning to Him; we also see heathen "oxbow lakes" creating their own "gods" and being allowed by God to plunder and kill the erring Israelites.
Then, at the right time, the Living River took on new life with the arrival of the Promised One who offers "living water."
In the 7th century Islam, drawing from both OT and NT, chose to be a distributary away from this River. Many scholars have viewed it as the final Antichrist: note "scourge" (Isa. 28), "Assyrian" (Mic. 5), "Euphrates" (Rev. 9) etc.
God will allow this "scourge" to temporarily persecute and even kill apostate Jews (JINOs) and Christians (CINOs). Jews, especially in "entertainment," seem more expert in apostasy than Christians since Jews have been at it 2000 years longer than Christians have - but Christians apparently want to catch up to the Jews!
It's apparent that others will join Islam in its end-time inquisition; its great oil wealth can captivate many leaders and already we are seeing apostate American leaders being bribed into turning against true American patriots.
Those who ignore (or try to dilute or destroy) the God-ordained Living River of History will be swept down it to an ocean made by their own never-ending tears of agony and despair!

Ken said...

Goofy "Last Days Madness" again. I don't put much stock in those predictions or end-time scenarios. sounds like the "new apostolic reformation" type stuff of Rick Joyner and Mike Bickle and the Kansas City Prophets. (or Hal Lindsay, jack Van Impe, or John Hagee)

Better to read the Bible in context and pray with a humble heart and witness to Muslims, rather than speculating on how Islam fits into end-times event scenarios.

People who go to those churches and those who teach this stuff need to start all over and
1. read the Bible from beginning to end in order.
2. Take a good hermeneutics course
3. Read the context and whole chapters and paragraphs and study historical background

Also, although I don't agree with everything they write, and many questions remain regarding "Partial-Preterism" (and James Swan raised excellent issues that require caution on being dogmatic about many eschatological views), these books should "kill" the modern evangelical tendency (mostly among Dispensational, Baptists, and Charismatics) to be reading Scripture into the newspaper and current events:

Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar
End Times Fiction by Gary DeMar
The Last Days According to Jesus, by R. C. Sproul
When Jerusalem Fell, by Kenneth Gentry

Also, see this debate between Mark Hitchcock and Hank Hannegraaf on the date of Revelation. Hitchcock did a good job of defending the 95 AD date of writing of Revelation, and HH didn't do too bad, although DeMar or Gentry would have been better in debate.


Ken said...

By the way, I am a Baptist by conviction, and go to a credo-baptizing church, so I am critical of my fellow baptists who depend too much on Tim LaHaye's books and Hal Lindsay's books, rather than a more sober approach to Scripture and the future.

Ken said...

Regarding Jay Smith's 15 part series on Islam:

I have not listened or watched all of them yet; but the last one on Muhammad (# 15) and refuting the claims that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible was very good.

Except he says Muhammad means "glorious one" - it means "praised one".
from hmd حمد = praise
محمد = Muhammad, "the praised one"
احمد = Ahmad, also derived from "Hmd"

In part 3, the rise of Islam, he made some mistakes, but I agree with the overall truth of what he says, that Islam spread by the sword and Christianity spread under persecution in the first 3 + centuries.

1. Ali did not die in the battle of Siffin, but they did have that battle with Muawiyya around 657 AD.
Ali was killed later, while worshipping and praying in Kufa, in 660 by a Khawrijite, who are considered "outside" of orthodox Islam, and were upset with both sides of the Ali vs. Muawiyya fighting. (Kharej or Khawrij means "outside" خارج )

2. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. This is a common error that needs to be corrected. Constantine did make Christianity legal and no longer persecuted, yes. (312-313 AD) But it was Theodosius in 380 AD that made Christianity the State religion.

3. Paul Fregosi's book (Jihad, 1998, Prometheus) needs footnotes and updating, in order to back up what he writes. He needs to footnote from Ibn Ishaq (Ibn Hisham, the Haddith, the Qur'an, the Tarikh, etc.) Most of it seems true, of what I have read (have only read the first 10 short chapters, to page 82, and skipped around after that), but there is no way to confirm what he writes, as there are no footnotes.

Jay says Fregosi's book is well documented, but it doesn't seem like it to me. He may mean "true", but it would be better to have footnotes to the Islamic sources.

Ken said...

Also, in part 4, the four verses that Jay cites, and are shown on the screen; that he will address later regarding the nature of Jesus -

I think Jay means to say:

Surah 5:72 (needs to go from verse 72-75)
Surah 5:116 ( not 150; maybe he meant 115, which maybe 116 in other English Qur'an translations)

Surah 6:101 - correct

4:171 - not 7:171

A guy named "Sam" (probably Sam Shamoun, I think), has pointed out some other errors that Jay has made.

Overall, Jay's presentation is still good; he just needs to correct his mistakes.