Muhammad and the Unbelievers

On numerous occasions I’ve said that I love Muslims (the people)—but I hate Islam (the religion)! Some of my reasons for hating this religious ideology are summarized quite well in the book, Muhammad and the Unbelievers; a Political Life by Bill Warner. This short book (only 167 pages) provides a fascinating and readable story of Muhammad’s life. It summarizes the very earliest biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq and weaves into the biography parts of the Muhammad’s teachings from the Koran and other early respected Islamic sources (I’ve read Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad--over 700 pages-- and the Koran so I know that Warner’s summary is accurate).

The advantage of this book over some modern biographies of Muhammad is that this book has not been filtered through the lenses of Muslim apologetics or modern Western political correctness. The story comes directly from Islam’s earliest and most sacred sources. Almost every paragraph in the book has been documented from those sources

The picture that emerges is that Muhammad was a man who was kind, hospitable, generous, loving, patient and forgiving—toward Muslims who submitted completely and unquestioningly to his rule.

Toward “Kafirs” (unbelievers), on the other hand, he was mercilessly vicious and cruel. He would threaten, intimidate, deceive, rob, rape, enslave, torture, execute and slaughter Kafirs by the hundreds! On one occasion, he sat all day long watching literally hundreds of Jews being beheaded at his command. Then he ordered their wives and children into slavery.

Muhammad ordered the executions of people for no other reason than the fact that those people had criticized Muhammad or had changed their minds and turned away from his religion. He “captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves, freed slaves, tortured slaves, had sex with slaves, gave slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and sued slaves for work” (164).

He allowed the black slave of his wife Aisha to be tortured in order to determine whether Aisha was faithful to him or not—and only after the torture revealed that Aisha was faithful did Muhammad receive a revelation exonerating her of any wrongdoing!

These stories do not come from “Islamophobic right wing extremists” but from Islam’s earliest and most sacred sources. These are the stories and teachings that Muhammad encouraged his followers to emulate—and which faithful Muslims in power have emulated for roughly 1,400 yeas!

You can buy the book on Amazon for $17.95: https://smile.amazon.com/Mohammed-Unbelievers-political-Islamic-trilogy/dp/097855289X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1549309883&sr=8-2&keywords=muhammad+and+the+unbelievers)

As a Christian, I love Muslims—but I hate Islam!

Understanding Fundamentalism

Any discussion of fundamentalism runs head long into the problem of definition. For example, if we were to define fundamentalists as “those who are willing to use force to establish the sovereignty of their religion, then there are virtually no Christian fundamentalists today, though there are millions of Muslim fundamentalists who might fit that description. For example, President George W. Bush, misguidedly wanted to establish Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he most certainly was not out to establish Christianity as the supreme religion.

Failure to define terms allows Hollywood elites like Rosie O’Donnell, for example, to make ridiculous statements equating Christian and Muslim “radicals,” i.e. fundamentalists. As far as I know, she didn’t define what she meant, but my guess is that if she and many others who share her view, were pressed for a definition they might define Christian fundamentalists as any Christian who doesn’t go along with the politically correct ideology of most mainline churches, e.g. acceptance of abortion, support for homosexuality and gay marriage, tolerance and even acceptance of all other religions, etc.

While this may or may not describe Christian fundamentalists, it is not a historically accurate definition. In its broad sense, the essence of religious fundamentalism is absolute devotion to one’s religious founder and the desire to interpret one’s sacred books as they were originally intended to be understood.

Fundamentalism, as discussed in this chapter, deals only with this broad sense of the term. There is also a more narrow sense in which Christian fundamentalism, in particular, began to be characterized by narrow sectarianism and doctrinal disputes over such issues as the meaning of end-time prophecies and personal application issues such as drinking, card playing and attending movies. In this narrow sense, Christian fundamentalists had an unfortunate tendency to be intolerant, petty, and self-righteous as they focused on more and more hairsplitting doctrinal differences.

This chapter is not concerned with this narrow sectarianism but deals only with the broad historical sense of the term “fundamentalist” which would include most of the Christians who call themselves “Evangelicals” as well as fundamentalist Muslims regardless of whether they are Sunni, Shiite, etc.

Christian fundamentalism

The origin of the word “fundamentalist,” dates to the publication of a set of essays in 1909 entitled, The Fundamentals. These essays defended what the fundamentalists, as they came to be known, believed to be core, non-negotiable elements of the Christian faith. The “fundamentalists” were responding to those known at the time as “modernists” (i.e. progressives) who denied these doctrines and tended to deny the fundamentalists’ “literal” interpretation of the Bible.

These modernists (like many progressive biblical scholars today) were almost all white, male, Eurocentric, academic elites who found many of the stories in the Bible contrary to their “modern” (19^th and 20^th century) politically correct sensibilities. As a result, they tended to re-interpret such stories as allegories or metaphors.

By contrast, “fundamentalists” argued for a “literal interpretation” of the Bible. The phrase “literal interpretation” was rather unfortunate, however, because it left the impression that fundamentalists denied all symbolism or figures of speech in the Bible. That perception is factually in error. Christian fundamentalists fully acknowledge the presence of figures of speech, symbols and parables in the Bible. The phrase “literal interpretation” was only used in contrast to the more wildly allegorical interpretation used by the Modernists.

By “literal” interpretation, the “Fundamentalists” believed that the Bible should be interpreted by attempting to determine what the original authors of the biblical writings were trying to communicate to their original readers. This is done by interpreting these biblical writings just like any other ancient documents, i.e. by taking such matters into consideration as genre, grammar, figures of speech and historical background.

An example of literal interpretation from the Old Testament could be regarding the commands to drive out the Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, etc. from the Promised Land.

“When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites,and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out” (Exodus 23:23).

And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. (Exodus 23:28).

“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. (Exodus 34:11).

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, (Deuteronomy 7:1).

“but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, (Deuteronomy 20:17).

As repugnant as these commands may be to modern Western sensibilities, Christian fundamentalists would refuse to interpret such stories as if they were allegories or symbolic narratives. Fundamentalists would insist, rather, that these commands, understood literally, were directed to specific people (Hebrews) at a specific time, under specific circumstances and were never intended as universal commands to kill all the infidels wherever you find them. Christian fundamentalists who follow in the intellectual tradition of 1909 Fundamentals, therefore, have never promoted violence in an attempt to coerce people into submission to Christianity.

On the contrary, based on the commands of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, fundamentalist Christians believe they have a mandate to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” that is, to tell people that all have sinned against God and stand condemned before him, but that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ to die an atoning sacrifice for the sin of all who turn to him in repentance and faith.

Following Jesus’ teachings the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christian fundamentalists oppose vengeance and personal violence. In other words, while they support the lawful use of violence by police when necessary (Romans 13:4-5), and while many (though not all) may support the just use of military force (Hebrews 11:32-34), they do not believe in violently taking the law into their own hands, and those who consistently follow Jesus do not use force to retaliate for wrongs done against them (Matthew 5:39, cf. Romans 12:19; Hebrews10:30).

Opponents of Christian fundamentalism would point out the examples of Christian violence—like the crusades, the inquisition, the IRA, and those who commit violent acts against abortion workers and abortion clinics. Most Fundamentalists would say that those who commit such violent acts were certainly not following Jesus and, with the possible exception of some perpetrators of abortion clinic violence, they were not true Christians at all—at least not in the historical fundamentalist sense described above as found in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, i.e. those who have truly recognized and repented of their sin, turning to Jesus Christ in loving devotion (faith).

While some of those who perpetrate abortion clinic violence may be Christian fundamentalists, are universally condemned by the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christian fundamentalists and represent only a very tiny fraction of the whole.

To illustrate this point, it could be noted that most people would insist that Muslim fundamentalists comprise only a small fraction of the total number of Muslims. Yet this small fraction have killed literally millions of people since 1993. By contrast, the National Abortion Federation provides a list of all those murdered for their involvement in the abortion industry since 1993 along with the names of the murderers. There are exactly five murderers: James Koop, Eric Randolph, John Salvi, Paul Hill, and Michael Griffin. Together they killed exactly 8 people since 1993. Muslim fundamentalists kill millions.

The five murderers assumed to be Christian fundamentalists, kill exactly eight people. Yet Christian fundamentalists have been compared with Muslim fundamentalists! The only possible explanations for this is either remarkable ignorance or anti-Christian bigotry and hate.

Unfortunately, it is this tiny fraction of abortion killers that get all the press—after all, it is news when some hateful individual claiming to be Christian kills an abortion doctor or a gay person. It is not news that hundreds-of-thousands of fundamentalist Christians went to church that week to worship and to give generously of their time and money to serve others. Nor is it news that the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists see such violence as a direct violation of James 1:20, “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”

While Christian fundamentalists are often attacked for their political activism (i.e. exercising their Constitutional rights), for every fundamentalist who is politically active there must be a hundred, if not a thousand, who believe that their primary task is to bring glory to God or to preach the gospel.

Contrary to some impressions, the fact is that it is a real challenge to get most fundamentalists to do anything political beyond voting. Christian fundamentalists—in the broad sense of the term--are such a huge group that if even half of them became politically unified and serious about political action, the result would be political earthquake.

There is little chance of that happening, however. Several years ago when an artist used public funding to depict a crucified Jesus dipped in urine, most fundamentalists were mute. If the spending of tax dollars to portray a crucified Jesus in urine didn’t motivate fundamentalists, nothing will (it is not hard to imagine what would happen if an artist publicly displayed a picture of Muhammad Qur’an dipped in urine)!

The vast majority of Christian fundamentalists, however, believe they are following Jesus when they quietly pray, worship, engage in outreach programs and give lots and lots of money to their churches and various charitable causes.

Muslim fundamentalism

Just as Christian fundamentalists point to the Bible, Muslim fundamentalists point to the Qur’an:

“…But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith” (Sura 2:191).

“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression” (Sura 2:193).

“Soon shall We cast terror Into the hearts of the Unbelievers (Sura 3:151).

“I will instill terror Into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks And smite all their Finger-tips off them. This because they contended Against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God And His Apostle, God Is strict in punishment” (Sura

8:12-13).

“Against them [Unbelievers] make ready Your strength to the utmost of your power, including Steeds of war, to strike terror Into (the hearts of) the enemies Of God and your enemies…” (Sura 8:60).

“Apostle! [i.e. Muhammad] rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are Twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will Vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, They will vanquish a thousand Of the Unbelievers: for these Are a people without understanding” (Sura 8:65)

“But when the forbidden months Are past, then fight and slay The Pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, And lie in wait for them…” (Sura 9:5).

“Fight those who believe not In God nor the Last Day…” (Sura 9:29)

“O Prophet! [Muhammad] strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites And be firm against them. Their abode is Hell…” (Sura 9:73).

“O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about…” (Sura 9:123).

“And for those who reject Faith And deny Our signs, There will be a humiliating

Punishment” (Sura 22:57).

“Those who annoy God and His Apostle—God has cursed them In this world and In the Hereafter, And has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment” (Sura 33:57)

“Truly if the Hypocrites, And those in whose hearts Is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, Desist not…They shall have a curse On them: wherever they Are found, they shall be Seized and slain (without mercy)” (Sura 33:61).

“Therefore, when ye meet The Unbelievers (in fight), Smite at their necks…” (Sura 47:4).

While both moderates and fundamentalists in Islam take seriously Muhammad’s claim to be the last and greatest prophet, and believe that the Qur’an was revealed by God, Muslim moderates are not entirely comfortable with all the commands to violence in the Qur’an or ahadith. Muslim moderates, therefore, tend to emphasize the parts of the Qur’an about compassion, mercy and peace. They may argue that Muhammad was just fighting defensive battles and that everyone has the right to defend themselves…and indeed, some of the passages cited above do appear in defensive contexts.

Some moderates may dismiss the commands to violence as part of seventh century Arabic culture that is no longer relevant today. Or they may spiritualize Muhammad’s life and call to violent jihad as if he were only calling for an inward struggle against sin.

Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, point to the life of Muhammad as their example. They are likely to point out that many of Muhammad’s battles were offensive, not defensive. After Muhammad left Mecca for Medina, he was no longer persecuted but became a powerful warrior who went on the offensive. He ordered executions, fought battles, and fought the infidel wherever he found them, just as he believed Allah had commanded.

Muslim fundamentalists may even argue that Muhammad’s later commands to violent jihad and to kill the infidel abrogate or overturn his earlier, more peaceful sayings. Some believe the commands to be merciful and hospitable extend only to other Muslims and to not apply to relations with “infidels.”

Indeed, Muhammad’s last command to leave no two religions in Arabia was a command of conquest, not defense. Beginning right after Muhammad, Muslim warriors—believing they were following Muhammad—extended the control of Islam by the sword all the way from southern France to Indonesia.

Unlike the commands to violence in the Old Testament which were given to a particular people at a particular time and place, commands to violence in Islamic texts are often broad enough and sufficiently vague to be applied to infidels at any time, in any place.

The Qur’an commands to “fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression” (Sura 2:193). It is always easy for Muslim fundamentalists to imagine some kind of “tumult or oppression” to use in justifying violent Jihad or to argue that they are fighting a defensive war. After all, the Qur’an forbids Muslims from killing other Muslims and yet that has not kept Muslim fundamentalists from killing other Muslims. The Muslim fundamentalists simply declare that the Muslims they are killing are not really Muslim at all. In the same way, it is relatively easy for Muslim fundamentalists to say they are fighting a defensive war against Infidels based on all kinds of imagined offenses.

Muslim fundamentalists would say that Muhammad’s commands to fight infidels was universal and cannot just be relegated to the seventh century but is an obligation for all Muslims at all times and in all places. They would insist that the call to Jihad is not just a call to spiritual struggle but is primarily a call to violent military struggle. The entire world must be brought into submission to Allah, peacefully if possible (i.e. if the infidel will convert to Islam) but by absolutely any and all means necessary.

As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said,

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!

Conclusion

Muhammad was a military and political leader whose armies struck terror into the hearts of non-Muslims in Arabia as he battled, captured, enslaved and executed his opponents. Muslim fundamentalists interpret the life and words of Muhammad in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Muhammad their mission is to bring the world into submission to Allah, peacefully if possible, but by absolutely any and all means necessary.

As a result they follow the example of Muhammad waging violent Jihad in their attempt to force the world into submission to Allah. In modern times, these fundamentalist jihadists capture, enslave, decapitate and slaughter innocent people by the millions following the example of Muhammad.

Many Americans argue that Muslim fundamentalists are only a small percentage of the total Muslim community but even if only 1% of Muslims were fundamentalist, 1% of a billion Muslims is ten million people who think the world must be brought under submission to Allah by absolutely all means necessary (and some estimates range as high as 10% or more). These Muslim fundamentalists are often the worst oppressors of Muslims who do not share their interpretation of the Qur’an.

By contrast, the Jesus of the Gospels was an itinerant prophet who traveled from village to village healing the sick and disabled, casting out demons, and even occasionally raising the dead. He rejected all efforts to make him king.

According to the Gospels, Jesus taught that he could personally forgive sin, that he had the authority to overturn Jewish dietary laws, that he was lord over the Sabbath, and that he would be the final end-time judge—things in a first century Jewish culture believed to be true only of God. Such things would certainly explain the fact that he was charged with blasphemy by his enemies. When his earliest followers became convinced that he had actually come back physically from the dead, they believed him.

Christian fundamentalists interpret the New Testament in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Jesus Christ their mission is to go into all the world and preach the gospel of repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ, showing love and compassion even to their enemies, as Jesus taught.

As a result, these Christian fundamentalists have spent millions and millions of dollars sending people into every area of the earth to proclaim and embody the gospel of Jesus Christ. These missionaries have often given up virtually everything, risking their lives to start and run clinics, orphanages, homeless shelters and schools all over the world.

Christian fundamentalists have rescued people from forced prostitution, sexual slavery, and domestic abuse. They’ve provided food, shelter, comfort, education, medical care, and other assistance, not just to Christians, but to people from nearly every tribe, race, nationality and religion on the face of the earth. In fact, many Christian fundamentalists have been murdered by the very groups of people they came to serve.

Undeterred, they still continue to go, while other Christian fundamentalists stay behind collectively giving millions to support these efforts and to work tirelessly in their communities through church and para-church ministries as well as community charities.

Fundamentalism, or absolute dedication and devotion, is not necessarily a bad thing—it all depends on to whom or to what cause one is dedicated.

A Christian - Muslim Dialogue, Part 11

The following is my final post in my critique of H.M. Baagil's "Christian - Muslim Dialogue."

A post-script specifically for Christians

In 2002, three Christian missionary hospital workers were murdered while providing medical care for Muslims in Yemen, another Christian missionary was shot to death while providing medical care for Muslims in Lebanon and yet another missionary Martin Burnham, was killed after ministering to Muslims in the Philippines.

In 2001 fifteen Christians were murdered by Muslims during a morning church service in Pakistan and the year before that (Dec 2000) ninety-three Christians were slaughtered in Indonesia for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam. All of this, however, pales in comparison to the atrocities of rape, slavery, torture and murder being committed on a mass scale by Muslims against Christians in the Sudan. Considering all of this, is it only human to respond with anger and desire to seek retaliation. In a country like America, in which so many people call themselves Christians, it may be well to ask the question, “What would Jesus do about Muslims?”

The question may seem a little silly since Islam was not founded until hundreds of years after Jesus lived, so Jesus never addressed the issue of Islam. In Jesus’ time, however, there was an interesting parallel that may provide some insights. To explore this parallel we need to take a brief excursion back through history to a tale of two kingdoms.

In the tenth century BC, Palestine was divided into two Jewish kingdoms: The northern kingdom of Samaria and the southern kingdom of Judea. The political tension between these two kingdoms escalated into religious strife when Samaria established an alternate place of worship in opposition to the Law of Moses.

In 722 BC the Assyrian empire forcibly relocated large numbers of conquered peoples to Samaria. The result was that the Jews of Samaria began to intermarry with these foreign peoples. Political and religious strife intensified as ethnic considerations where added to the mix.

Eventually, Judea was also conquered and most of its inhabitants were deported. When these Jews were finally allowed to return to their homeland, the Samaritans used everything in their power, including threats of violence, to prevent the Jews from rebuilding Jerusalem and their temple. The political, religious and ethnic strife escalated into hatred of the two groups for each other. The situation, however, eventually went from the frying pan to the fire.

By the mid 100’s BC a ruthless Syrian king known as Antiochus IV Epiphanes is said to have slaughtered and/or enslaved 80,000 Jews! Even if the numbers were exaggerated, the extent of the terror and grief felt by the Jews is impossible to exaggerate. There was probably not a single family in all of Judea that had not personally been affected by this terror--so when the Jews discovered that their Samaritan neighbors to the north actually supported this campaign of terror, we might imagine that the level of Jewish hatred for Samaritans was almost beyond comprehension.

This hatred continued all through the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, not long before Jesus’ public ministry began, a group of Samaritans defiled the Jewish temple in Jerusalem with dead carcasses. While to us this may sound like an act of vandalism and intolerance, to first century Jews for whom the temple was sacred, this act was undoubtedly an atrocity. By the time Jesus began his public ministry, therefore, the Jewish people felt very justified in their hatred toward Samaritans.

It is with this background in mind that a story about Jesus recorded in the fourth chapter of John stands out in startling contrast. According to this story, Jesus was traveling back to Galilee from Jerusalem. Rather than crossing the Jordan in order to avoid traveling through Samaria as was the usual Jewish practice, Jesus deliberately traveled through the heart of Samaria and started a conversation with a Samaritan woman. This was notable not only because she was a Samaritan but because first century Rabbi’s didn’t usually engage women in public discussions.
After extended conversation which eventually included the local townspeople, Jesus and his followers accepted an invitation of hospitality and stayed with the Samaritans for several days before continuing on their way.

So what does all this have to do with Islam? Notice the similarities: 1) Samaritans recognized Moses as a prophet and the Jewish Torah (with modifications), as authoritative. Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet and the gospels (with modifications), as authoritative. 2) Samaritans and Jews had both perpetrated violence against each other. Islam and Christianity have both perpetrated violence against each other. 3) Samaritans and Jews felt they had good, solid reasons for hating each other. Many Christians and Muslims feel they have good, solid reasons for hating each other.

In fact, if any people had good reasons to hate another group of people, it was the Jews against Samaritans! Yet even though Jesus was fully Jewish, according to the story in the Gospel of John, he did not hate Samaritans! He was not violent toward them and he did not insult or verbally abuse them. Instead, he apparently treated them with kindness and respect, conversing with them and accepting their hospitality.

So what would Jesus do about Muslims? Since Jesus did not directly tell the Jewish rulers how they should address the Samaritan problem, this article is not intended to address the complicated political issues involved in international relations. On a personal level, however, since Jesus treated even Samaritans with kindness and respect, it is hard to imagine that he would have treated Muslims differently. Christians should be known as those who reach out in love to our Muslim neighbors just as Jesus reached out to Samaritans.

A Christian - Muslim Dialogue, part 10

The following is part 10 of my critique of a "Christian - Muslim Dialogue" by H.M. Baagil.

Not only do Muslims deny Jesus’ resurrection, they even deny that he was crucified!

On pages 27-28 Baagil says, “The Noble Qur’an states in Surah 4:157-158 that Jesus PBUH was not crucified.” Baagil then quotes the Qur’an which says, “And their [Jews] boasting: ‘We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the apostle of Allah,’ but they [Jews] killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man).”

In support of the Qur’an, Baagil argues that Jesus prayed not to be crucified so, Baagil reasons, God must have answered him.

Notice, however, how Baagil’s argument works. In spite of the fact that the Gospels all agree that Jesus was crucified, Baagil assumes that the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion are inaccurate.
But Baagil takes Jesus’ prayer out of context, assuming that this prayer is authentic and accurate!

Not even this “cherry-picking” of evidence will work for Baagil, though, because in this same prayer that Baagil treats as authentic, Jesus also prayed, “thy will be done.” God did answer Jesus’ prayer. God’s will was done, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 53:10 (cf. also Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2). This is the essence of the Christian message: that "God so loved the world (even Muslims!) that he sent his only Son that whover believes in him might not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

Baagil then argues that when Jesus said “touch me not” this must be understood in the Muslim sense that Jesus was a male Muslim who couldn’t let a woman touch him.

Aside from the fact that Muslims didn’t even exist for another 600 years after Jesus’ time, Baagil’s argument ignores the context of John. In the context of John, Jesus’ command “touch me not” cannot be a denial of Jesus’ crucifixion because Jesus gives this command after he was already crucified and raised! We must always beware of people who continually pull passages out of context.

Baagil then argues that Jesus asked his disciples “to examine his hands and feet that there were no signs of nailing on the cross (Luke 24:36-41).”

Once again, Baagil pulls yet another passage out of context. In context, the events of Luke 24:36-41 occur after Jesus’ resurrection. Luke 24:36-41 was merely making the point that the resurrected Jesus was not a spirit but had flesh and bones. Luke does NOT deny that the risen Jesus had nail prints.

Baagil conveniently neglects to mention that according to John 20:27 Jesus invited Thomas to “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side.” Jesus was using the nail prints and spear wound as proof that he really was the same Jesus who was crucified.

Not only do Luke and John affirm Jesus’ crucifixion, but so do Matthew, Mark, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews and Revelation, all written in the first century AD.

The crucifixion of Jesus is also confirmed by other ancient Christians whose writings were not included in the New Testament—sources all written from about 400 to 500 years before Muhammad; for example, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, the letter of Barnabas, Hegesippus, Mileto of Sardis, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Tatian (Diatessaron).

(Note: The Letter of Barnabas mentioned above is not to be confused with the so-called Gospel of Barnabas. On page 37 Baagil cites the Gospel of Barnabas as if it were genuine but even Muslim scholars acknowledge that the Gospel of Barnabas is a medieval Muslim forgery).

Even ancient non-Christians affirmed Jesus’ crucifixion. For example, the first century Jewish historian, Josephus says Jesus was crucified as does the early second century non-Christian, Lucian. Even the Roman historian Tacitus confirms Jesus execution saying that Jesus "sufferred the "extreme penalty" under Pontius Pilate.

The crucifixion of Jesus is an accepted fact in the scholarly world. Even radical anti-Christian skeptics believe Jesus was crucified. In fact, the only ones who reject this fact are Muslims who must reject Jesus’ crucifixion because Muhammad rejected it. If Jesus was crucified, Muhammad was wrong.

So why did Muhammad—who lived about 600 years after Jesus--teach that Jesus was not crucified? The answer is very simple. Muhammad was deceived by a group of people we often call "Gnostics" who believed that Jesus was divine but not truly human. As a result of their philosophy, the Gnostics concluded that Jesus couldn't really die. So starting about 200 to 300 years after Jesus’ death, these Gnostics argued that Jesus was not really crucified and that he died only in appearance. They were not doing history, mind you, they were just trying to twist history to fit their philosophy.

The idea, found in the Qur’an, that a substitute died in Jesus’ place comes from this group of Gnostic pseudo-Christians who didn’t even believe Jesus was truly human!

That Muhammad got his ideas from these Gnostics is evidenced by the fact that Muhammad got other ideas from this group as well. For example Muhammad’s teaching that Jesus made clay birds come to life and fly away comes from the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas which is another gospel written about 200 years after Jesus. Absolutely no one thinks this story is true, except Muslims who must believe it because Muhammad taught it! Muhammad probably got it from his “Christian” uncle or other heretical “Christians” with whom he had come in contact.

We know about these ancient Gnostics from ancient writings they left. For example, a writing called The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, probably written about 200 years after Jesus was born, puts these words into the mouth of Jesus:

“They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns.”

This treatise says that Jesus died not in reality but in appearance and that he was laughing at them.

Likewise the so-called Apocalypse of Peter, written over 200 years after the time of Jesus, says,:

“The Savior said to me, ‘He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hand and feet they drive the nails in his fleshly part, which is the substitute…”

So supposedly, while “the living Jesus” was being crucified—one of the most brutal tortures imaginable—he was laughing because the nails had been driven into the hands of a substitute!

This is the pool of ideas from which Muhammad got his idea when he said, "That they [Jews] said in boast, 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God'--but they killed him not nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them..." (Surah 4:157).

Some of these early Gnostic heretics taught that the Trinity was God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit the Mother (e.g. The Gospel of the Hebrews—not to be confused with the biblical book of Hebrews).

No wonder Muhammad was shocked! He apparently thought that Christians believed that God the Father had sex with God the Mother (whom they identified with the Holy Spirit) and produced God the Son! But this is not what orthodox Christians believed! The virgin birth of Jesus—which is something taught even in the Qur’an—is a mystery which is not to be thought of in terms of sexual relations.

But this raises an interesting question: Since the Qur’an teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin (Surah 3:47-49) how could this possibly happen unless it was directly the work of God? According to the Muhammad, Jesus was of great honor, righteous, a prophet (Surah 43:59), God's Apostle (Surah 4:157) and even the Christ (Surah 3:45-46). He was one to whom God imparted his revelation (3:47-49; 5:110) and one who was strengthened with holy inspiration (Surah 2:87; 2:253; 5:110). According to Muhammad, Jesus healed the blind, healed lepers and even raised the dead (Surah 5:110), none of which Muhammad could do.

In fact, so great is Jesus that according to the Hadith, “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Apostle said, “So they will go to Jesus and say, “O Jesus! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Word (6.200-201; 60.178.236)” and “Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “Go to Jesus, Allah’s Slave, His Apostle, and Allah’s Word and a Spirit coming from Him (6.4).” In other words, Muhammad called Jesus the very “Word of God.” Muslimis need to ask themselves how you can separate the word of God from God himself? It’s like trying to separate the sun’s rays from the sun, or heat from fire or the spirit from the body.

Bottom line: Jesus is the holy, righteous miracle-working Word of God! There is none like him.
There is none above him. He is the ONE to whom every person who ever lived will give account at the last judgment. He is the ONE to whom every knee will bow. He is the ONE to whom we must bow and confess with the apostle Thomas, “My Lord and my God!”

Tomorrow: A concluding post-script specifically to Christians.

A Christian - Muslim Dialogue, part 9

This is part 9 of my critique of a "Christian - Muslim Dialogue" by H.M. Baagil.

On page 23 of the book, one of the arguments Baagil's imaginary “Christian” gives for Jesus’ deity is his resurrection from the dead. The Muslim’s response is to say that this idea comes from Paul “who never saw Jesus alive” and that “The gospel of the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 has also been removed in many Bibles.” With that, the Muslim apparently thinks he has disproved the resurrection of Jesus.

First, it is true that two very ancient manuscripts—Vaticanus and Sinaiticus—which contain the Gospel of Mark, do not have Mark 16:9-20, which is why some English translations have “removed” it or place it in a footnote.

But there are thousands of New Testament Greek manuscripts and almost all of them that contain the Gospel of Mark, include Mark 16:9-20.

Second, Irenaeus and Tertullian, both of whom lived before the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were copied, quoted from Mark 16:9-20. In other words, Mark 16:9-20 was certainly part of the Gospel of Mark in some (or all) manuscripts before codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were copied.

Third, Tatian’s Diatesseron (an early harmony of the Gospels) also has Mark 16:9-20 and it was written before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus also. In other words, Mark 16:9-20 was also part of whatever manuscripts Tatian used to create his harmony of the Gospels--which was earlier than either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

Nevertheless, the Muslim is right that most scholars do not believe Mark 16:9-20 is genuine, but that doesn’t mean the Gospel of Mark didn’t know of Jesus’ resurrection. Indeed, Jesus predicts his own resurrection both in Mark 9:9 and Mark 14:28. There is, therefore, no question that Mark knew of Jesus’ resurrection.

But even aside from Mark, the teaching that Jesus rose from the dead is also found in numerous other first century AD sources including several of Paul’s letters. For example, in Paul’s letter to the Galatians (which even the critics believe in genuine), Paul tells of how he had once persecuted Christians and tried to destroy Christianity, but then he converted and began proclaiming the very religion he had tried to destroy! Paul went up to Jerusalem and met with the apostles of Jesus and they personally gave him their blessing to preach the Gospel—the Gospel which included the resurrection, which Paul mentions in the very first verse of Galatians.

Likewise, in first Corinthians (which even the critics believe is genuine), Paul is so convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead, he says that if Jesus had not risen all Paul's effort and suffering has been for nothing!

Paul also talks about the resurrection of Jesus in Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, and Second Timothy.

In addition to Paul’s letters, the resurrection is found in Matthew, Luke/Acts, John, 1 Peter, Revelation, the edited version of Josephus, and in Clement of Rome.

The resurrection is also affirmed in many second century AD sources as well, including, Ignatius (d. 98/117), Polycarp (wrote 110), Didache (2nd cent), Epistle of Barnabas, Hermas (ca 150), Papias (60-130), Epistle to Diognetus, Irenaeus (194), Justin (100-165), Tertullilan (160-220), Athenagoras (2nd cent), Theophilus (2nd cent), Minucius Felix (2-3 cent), Hipolytus (170-236), Origen (185-254), Tatian (110-172).

Even some of the so-called “lost gospels” of the second century affirmed the resurrection of Jesus: Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Thomas, Odes of Solomon, 5th Ezra, Epistula Apostolorum, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of the Savior, Gospel of Peter, Acts of Peter, Acts of Thomas, Apocryphon of James, Ascension of Isaiah, Wisdom of Christ, and Treatise on the resurrection.

In fact, about 40 authors mention the resurrection of Jesus within 150 years of his death. By contrast, only 10 authors mention Tiberius Casear—the ruler of the entire Roman Empire—within 150 years of Tiberius’ death!

Besides the extensive documentary evidence, the resurrection of Jesus explains some otherwise difficult-to-explain events.

First, it explains why Paul and James—two committed anti-Christians—came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, Savior and Son of God.

Second, the resurrection explains why the earliest Christians—who were all Jews—suddenly started worshiping on the first day of the week (the day on which Jesus rose) rather than on the Sabbath (seventh day). This change is of huge significance since rest on the Sabbath was commanded by God. It would be like Muslims suddenly deciding to worship on Sunday rather than on Friday. Such a radical change would cry out for an explanation.

Third, the resurrection explains why the earliest Christians, who were all monotheistic Jews, began actually worshiping Jesus and referring to Jesus in ways that other Jews would only refer to God (Phil 2, Col 1, John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 10:13 ref to Joel 2:32, Mark 1 ref to Isa 40:3, John 1). No matter how much Jews respected Moses or their other prophets, they would never worship them or attribute actions that only properly belong to God. Something must explain this radical change—and belief in the resurrection explains it.

Fourth, the resurrection explains why the Jesus movement would even continue at all after Jesus’ death. In the Jewish mind, the Messiah was a king who would save the Jews from their enemies. But Jesus wasn’t a king in any earthly sense, and not only did he not rescue the Jews from their enemies—he was executed by them!

Jesus' "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem is a good illustration. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey deliberately fulfilling the prophet Zachariah’s prophecy of Israel’s king coming to them on a donkey and he was hailed by waving palm branches and shouts of “hosanna, hosanna” (save us, save us!). But only days later the people were yelling “crucify him, crucify him.”

There was a change because the Jews who welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem were hoping that Jesus--the miracle working prophet from Galilee--was their long awaited Messiah-king. They were disparately hoping that he would now act to kick out the oppressive Romans. But only days later, there was Jesus—chained to Roman soldiers, mocked, beaten and bloodied.

Those who yelled “crucify him” turned on him because they assumed he must be an impostor and deceiver! In their minds it was absolutely impossible that their Messiah-King would ever be subdued by their enemies. In fact, when Jesus died, even his disciples lost hope for awhile. A Messiah just couldn’t die at the hands of their enemies.

So why didn’t the Jesus Movement die out just like every other messianic movement we know about? The answer is that Jesus’ followers became absolutely, positively convinced that they had seen Jesus alive and well physically after his death. They were so convinced that they were willing to suffer beatings, imprisonments, stoning and even death—not for some good cause (many people will suffer for good causes)—but because they knew Jesus was alive! As Paul says in First Corinthians, if Christ has not risen, everything is in vain (my paraphrase).

The resurrection—in addition to Jesus’ miracles and fulfilled prophecies—was enough evidence to convince them that Jesus really was who he had claimed to be: their Messiah and Savior!

Some people make a big deal out of the supposed discrepancies in the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.

First, in the book Easter Enigma, Oxford scholar John Wenham does a remarkable job showing that these supposed discrepancies are not really contradictions at all.

Second, even if there were minor contradictions in the Gospel’s resurrections stories, that is precisely what you would expect in any testimony by multiple people. For example, if all you knew about 9/11 was what you read in Newsweek, New York Times, the Washington Post and Time, you probably wouldn’t assume the event never happened just because you could find discrepancies and contradictions in the various stories!

Critics’ attacks on the resurrection stories due to minor disagreements are really nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to distract from the fact that the gospels have a remarkable agreement on the main points of the resurrection story, i.e. that: 1) Mary and other women 2) found the stone rolled away from Jesus’ tomb, 3) and found the tomb empty, 4) on the first day of the week (Sunday, not Monday, Tuesday, etc.), 5) on the third day after Jesus was crucified, and that 7) Jesus physically appeared to the women and 8) to his disciples.

It is significant that the Gospels agree that Jesus appeared first to the women because in those days women were not considered to be competent to give testimony. For example, the first century Jewish historian, Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex” (Antiquities 4.219).

So if the Gospel writers were just fabricating a story about Jesus’ resurrection, the last thing they would do is make up a story about women being the primary eyewitnesses! If I lived back then and wanted to make up such a story, I’d make one up about how Pilate, or Herod or the chief priests found the empty tomb and saw Jesus alive!

All of this just scratches the surface. Those who are really interested in pursuing this topic of the resurrection of Jesus, should purchase the outstanding book, “The Resurrection of Son of God” by N.T. Wright (740 pages).

As an aside: some people play a little mental game with all of this evidence. They say to themselves, in effect, "If you Christians can't prove to me with absolute, scientific proof that Jesus rose from the dead, I am justified in not believing." This is a game because absolutely nothing can withstand that degree of skepticism. Atheism can't. Evolution can't. Certainly Islam cannot.

But Baagil doesn't just deny the resurrection. He also denies Jesus' crucifixion. More on that tomorrow or Monday.

A Christian - Muslim Dialogue, part 8

The following is part 8 of my critique of A Christian - Muslim Dialogue by H.M. Baagil.

On pages 18-26 Baagil challenges the deity of Jesus, the sonship of Jesus and the Trinity. He repeats the same tired old argument that the word Trinity cannot be found in the Bible as if he honestly believes this proves something.

As has been explained time and time again, the word Trinity is a word that later theologians used to describe the data found in the Bible. Some would prefer the world Tri-unity. Regardless of what we call it, the doctrine of Trinity is taught in the Bible even if the actual word is not used.

First, the Bible is very clear that, contrary to Muhammad, Jesus is much more than just a great prophet.

Jesus is specifically called God in the New Testament. For example, Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” and neither Jesus nor the writer of John say anything to correct this statement (John 20:28). Jesus accepts this worship.

John 1:1 and 18 says “The Word was with God and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The context leaves absolutely no doubt that the Word who was God is Jesus (In fact, even Muhammad said Jesus was a word from God, but more on that below).

John 1:18 says “the only God who is at the Father’s side has made him known.” Again, the context makes it clear that “The only God” is referring to Jesus.

Titus 2:13 refers to “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The way this sentence is constructed in Greek leaves no serious doubt that Paul was intending to call Jesus, God.

Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” The writer of Hebrews says that God “makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire, but of the Son He [God] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

Second Peter 1:1 refers to “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Again, the Greek construction of this phrase leaves no serious doubt that the writer intended to attribute deity to Jesus.

Philippians 2:6 says that although Jesus “was in the form of God” he “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself…to the point of death, even death on a cross…so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth [this includes Muhammad] and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Here Jesus is both deity and yet somehow distinct from the Father.

Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” and that “by him [Jesus] all things were created in heaven and on earth…”

The new Testament also applies Old Testament passages to Jesus that clearly referred to God in their original contexts. For example, Mark combines quotes from Isaiah and Malachi about a messenger preparing the way for YHWH. In Mark, the messenger is John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus (Matthew and Luke do the same thing).

In Romans 10:13 Paul says of Jesus, “Whoever will call on the name of the LORD will be saved.” This is a quote from Joel 2:32 which says, “Whoever will call on the name of YHWH will be saved.”

Jesus also claims to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-2; Luke 24:47) and backs it up by supernatural healing (something Muhammad never did, by the way). In a Jewish context, only God could forgive sin and the people in Jesus’ audience understood that Jesus was claiming to do something that only God could do and they accused him of blasphemy!

Jesus also claimed to be “lord of the Sabbath.” But God instituted the Sabbath. No one is lord of the Sabbath but God. If we take the Gospels seriously, Jesus was either a liar, a nutjob, a blasphemer (which no Muslim would claim) or Jesus is truly God.

The idea that Jesus was actually the embodiment of God is not just found in the New Testament. For example, Ignatius, a church leader who lived shortly after the last book in the New Testament was written, says, “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh..."Ignatius understood very well what the New Testament taught about Jesus deity. But Ignatius continued this sentence saying that Jesus was "both of Mary and of God." Even Muhammad affirmed that Jesus was born of Mary as a result of a virgin birth.

Clement of Rome (first century), Polycarp, Justin, and Irenaeus (second century) are just a few of the other very early church leaders who understood and believed the New Testament claims about Jesus’ deity.

About the same time as Ignatius (roughly 110 AD) there was a Roman governor, named Pliny, in a province located in the modern country of Turkey. Pliny didn’t know what to do with all the Christians in his province so he wrote to the Roman emperor Hadrian to ask for advice. Pliny wrote that his investigations showed that Christians “were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god.”

Pliny wasn’t a Christian so he had nothing to gain by lying. He was simply reporting what Christian churches did and what they did was to worship Jesus as God (Pliny would naturally say “a god” because Pliny was a polytheist and the concept of just one God was foreign to him).

Lucian was another anti-Christian. He wrote, “and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.” Lucian clearly understood that Christians believed in Jesus’ deity and worshiped him. He also affirms that Jesus was crucified, something that Muhammad denied.

The idea that Jesus was much more than just a great prophet should also be clear from Muhammad’s own teachings. For example

To Muslims, Muhammad was a prophet, but Muhammad taught that Jesus was a “Word” or “Spirit” coming from Allah himself!

Muhammad didn’t do any miracles but Muhammad said that Jesus healed the blind, healed lepers and even raised the dead (Surah 5:110).

There was nothing unusual about Muhammad’s birth but Muhammad said that Jesus was born of a virgin (Surah 3:47-49).

Muhammad never thought of himself as anything more than a prophet but he called Jesus the “Christ”(Surah 3:45-46) and admitted that Jesus was “strengthened with Holy Inspiration (Surah 2:87; 5:110) and given revelation from God (Surah 3:47-49; 5:110).

Anyway, regardless of how Muhammad's teachings about Jesus are interpreted, the New Testament is very clear that Jesus was the incarnation of God himself.

So God is obviously God and according to the New Testament, Jesus is God. But the Bible also attributes deity to the Holy Spirit (compare Isaiah 6:8-9 with Acts 28:25-26. Also compare Jeremiah 31:31-34 with Hebrews 10:15-17). The deity of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the fact that the Holy Spirit is said to have the attributes of God (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 1 Cor 2;9-11; Hebrews 9:14) and the Holy Spirit performs the works of God (Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; Luke 12:11-12; Acts 1:5; 20:28; 1 Cor 6:11; 2:8-11; 2 Peter 1:21).

The Muslim in Baagil’s imaginary dialoge, however, argues that the Spirit of God is Gabriel. In the fabricated “conversation” between the Muslim and the imaginary Christian, the Muslim asks the Christian to Read Matthew 1:18 which says that Mary “was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” The Muslim then tells the Christian to read Luke 1:26-27 which says that Gabriel was sent to Mary. The Muslim concludes that Gabriel and the Holy Ghost are the same.

Baagil’s imaginary Muslim actually rips Luke 1:26-27 out of context. What the context of Luke 1:26-35 actually says is that the angel Gabriel came to Mary to announce that she will become pregnant. When Mary objects saying that she is a virgin, the angel Gabriel says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” Gabriel says that the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary. Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are not the same.

The idea that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel is actually refuted by the very passage this Muslim uses to make his case. I would think it would be rather difficult for the Muslim to argue that this passage has been corrupted by Christians, since Baagil's Muslim used it as a proof text for his own argument! The very passage this Muslim cites to make his case, however, actually alludes to the Trinity: “The Holy Spirit [NOT Gabriel!] will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35)!

The Muslim could argue, I suppose, that since God is Spirit, the “Holy Spirit” is simply another way of referring to God. Muslims won’t make this argument, however, because they are committed to Muhammad’s mistake of thinking that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel.

The argument that the Holy Spirit is just another way for saying God doesn’t hold up either because the New Testament makes a distinction between God the Father and God the Spirit.

For example, Father, Son and Spirit are all present, yet distinct, at the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11; Matthew 3:16-17; Luke 3:21-22; cf. John1:32-34).

Another example of the distinction between God the Father and God the Spirit is in John 14:26 in which Jesus (God the Son) says that God the Father will send the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t make much sense to say that God is sending Himself.

Yet another example of the distinction between God the Father and God the Spirit is that God the Spirit is said to intercedes for us in our prayers to God the Father (Romans 8:26-27).

In the Gospel of John, The Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus (John 16:14). The Bible never says that Jesus "glorifies the Holy Spirit."

Blasphemy of the Spirit is apparently even more serious than blasphemy of the Father or Son (probably because it is the Spirit who draws people to the Father and Son).

The Spirit is “sent” by the Father (Jn 14:16-17, 26). The Bible never says the Spirit sends the Father.

The Spirit is also "sent by the son" (Jn 16:7), the Bible never says the Spirit sends the Son, and Jesus was not "sending" himself.

Jesus was crucified. The Father and Spirit were not crucified.

Jesus said that after he died, the Father would send another Helper. In this passage, Father, Son and Spirit are somehow distinct (John 14:26).

The Bible clearly teaches a distinction between Father, Son and Spirit. Are we supposed to believe that Christians managed to corrupt all of these passages in thousands of ancient manuscripts, translations and quotations, and that Muhammad alone has the truth?

Anyway, it is for all of these reasons (and more) that orthodox Christians have affirmed that the Bible teaches there is ONE and only ONE God (Deuteronomy 6:1; Matthew 12:29) who exists eternally in three “persons”: Father, Son and Spirit. The Bible doesn't have a name for this phenomena so theologians chose to call it the Trinity (I think Tri-unity may have been a better term).

Muslims may disagree with this doctrine. They may think it is illogical, irrational, or contradictory, but for anyone to say that Christians believe in three gods is simply a profound ignorance of Christianity.

The fact is that we worship a Creator who created a universe so unbelievably huge and complex (from tiny but incredibly complex micro-organisms to billions of gigantic galaxies) that human beings do not yet comprehend or understand it all. This being the case, there just might be some things about our awesome Creator that our feeble minds just do not understand.

Imagine, for example, trying to explain a long distance cell phone call to someone from the 1700’s. They wouldn’t understand the concept of telephones, much less cell phones. If you tried to explain it to them, they wouldn’t understand frequencies, or satellites or electronics or even plastic! In other words, they wouldn’t even understand the concepts necessary to understand the principles behind cell phones! How much less do we understand God! So when God reveals himself as ONE God eternally existing in Father, Son and Spirit, Christians believe it even if we can’t explain it.

Baagil’s book then has his imaginary Christian provide arguments for the deity of Jesus. These arguments are "straw men" which the Muslim easily refutes. So for example the imaginary Christian argues that Jesus is God because he could do miracles, and could heal leprosy and could cause a blind man to see, and could raise the dead and could walk on water and could cast out devils. The Muslim refutes this by pointing out that other prophets (like Elijah or Elisha; but not Muhammad) also healed people or raised the dead.

This is true, but for informed Christians, Jesus' healing is not, by itself, proof of Jesus’ deity. They are, however, reasons that Christians take seriously what Jesus taught about himself. None of the prophets ever taught that they were above the Sabbath, or could forgive sins, or could overturn God's dietary laws, or were "one" with the Father. Jesus' miracles and resurrection give us reason to believe that Jesus was telling the truth.

But now that we’re on the subject, the non-Muslim might ask, what reason do we have to believe that Muhammad was telling the truth? Why should we believe Muhammad just because he said he received revelations from God? Other people have said they have received revelations from God too.

Why should we believe Muhammad just because he said he went on an overnight trip to Jerusalem (a roughly 1,400 mile round trip long before Saudi Airlines was developed) even though both his bed-partner for that night and his wife A’isha admitted that Muhammad's body didn’t go anywhere that night? Some of us want evidence.

Muslims will say that the Qur’an is evidence. I’ve read the Qur’an. While Muslims may see the Qur’an as a thing of beauty, most non-Muslims do not see it that way. We do not see it as evidence that Muhammad was a genuine prophet. In fact, quite the contrary.

On the other hand, Jesus’ miracles—which even Muhammad admits Jesus did—and Jesus' resurrection are evidence that Jesus really was who he claimed to be and who others claimed him to be, i.e. the Messiah, Savior, and incarnation of God.

More on the resurrection of Jesus in part 9 tomorrow.