The Bible vs. the Qur'an

In this first of a series of questions about Islam, I would like to address the comparison of the Bible vs. the Qur'an. First of all, I do not believe that everything in the Qur'an is evil, as some such as Robert Spencer and Don Richardson have claimed. There are some parts that Christians can agree with, starting at Surah 1.





The problem with examining the Qur'an is the lack of textual criticism allowed by Islam itself. The Qur'an is not considered by Islamic scholars to be inaccurate to the point that to fully understand it, based on their teachings, one must read it in the original Arabic. The Qur'an is considered to be the eternal word of God, written on a gold tablet in heaven, given as the final revelation to the prophet Muhammad. Those of you who are scholars of Mormonism will realize that this sounds familiar as something similar is said about the book of Mormon.







The Bible, on the other hand, was written down over thousands of years by different men inspired by God. It has been subjected to textual criticism, but has not been found with major errors. We have some very old manuscripts from which to pull from and new scholarship continues to clarify what is meant by certain passages. Overall, it has held it's place over time. However, with the Qur'an, we do not have access to old manuscripts. In fact, many of the original manuscripts were destroyed on purpose soon after Muhammad was dead. The Qur'an has also been compiled from fragments that people had written down from things that Muhammad said. In fact, the Qur'an was compiled quite differently from the way the Bible was compiled.





As far as content, it's debatable as to whether or not the Qur'an is a wholly violent book or a wholly peaceable book. It's a little of both just as the Bible is. The ones who argue that the Qur'an is wholly violent (such as Spencer and Richardson) have to deny that the Bible contains scenes in which God commands genocide. One cannot argue for one without denying the other. On the other hand, one cannot argue that the Qur'an is wholly peaceable either. If one looks at the Qur'an through the eyes of history during the time of Muhammad, one can see different subjects come up as Muhammad experienced them. It's important to look at the various aspects of the Qur'an in a chronological manner.





Early on, Muhammad had no problem with the Jews and Christians and they had no problem with him. He was advocating monotheism, which caused problems with his own people. His first wife was a Christian (albeit a mystical Egyptian Coptic Christian) who confirmed to him that what he was saying was from God. Whether it was true or not is a different story. She sent him to her cousin (also a Christian) who also confirmed it. It was in the later years, when the Jews and Christians would not conform to what Muhammad was saying, that the "revelations" about killing Jews and Christians came about. Again, similarities to Mormonism abound. Satan must have run out of ideas when he created Mormonism.



With all this information, how does one effectively share the Gospel with a Muslim or even with someone who sees validity with what the Qur'an says? I heard Alistair Begg say that we often talk about the dangers of not accepting the Gospel with people, or the benefits of accepting the Gospel, but not the Gospel itself. What is the Gospel? It is Jesus Christ, God's only Son, giving His life as a sacrifice so that mankind might have eternal life through belief in this truth. The sacrifice was perfect because Jesus was sinless. Now, a Muslim, is not going to believe this truth right away. They may even throw up issues such as Jesus prophesying Muhammad in the Bible or God not having a Son because that would mean that God had sex. Let's get a few of these out of the way.



1. Does Jesus prophesy Muhammad in the Bible?

Short answer: no. Long answer, look at John 15:26ff. John 15:26 (ESV)“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

Often, the Muslim will only have heard about Muhammad being prophesied by Jesus from their Imam, but they don't know where to go to find out the information themselves. I've just provided the answer for you. The Muslim does not know who the Holy Spirit is. Jesus is speaking in this passage about the Holy Spirit (the paraklētos). The Holy Spirit is a comforter, and advocate, not a messenger, nor a prophet. In John 16:13, Jesus references the Holy Spirit again, this time using the word, pneuma, for Spirit. Never is a physical person prophesied  by Jesus.

 

2. Jesus as the Son of God.

I recently had to answer for this when I was in Mali. It was quite interesting that this should come up, but should've been expected and I was prepared for it, for the most part. The Holy Spirit led as well. John 1 is about the easiest explanation that one can give to a Muslim for Jesus being the Son of God, or even  God made flesh.

John 1:1 (ESV) In the beginning was  he Word, and  the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and  the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and  his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right  to become  children of God, 13 who  were born, not of blood  nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And  the Word  became flesh and  dwelt among us,  and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of  grace and truth. 

Again, most Muslims have never heard this. In fact, the man I was talking to had asked about Jesus being the Son of God before and had received answers such as "he could only understand it if he had the Holy Spirit" (some truth to that, but not the answer one should give), to "Jesus was not the Son of God" (Jehovah's Witnesses). Either way, once I explained from the Bible this passage, he seemed satisfied with my answer (though it didn't seem he fully agreed), and said that no one had ever tried to explain this to him before. One thing to note, they may try to take you to the Qur'an on this point as well. We can go the Qur'an too (eyebrows raised, I know). Surah 3:42-55 can be of great help in bridging the Qur'an to the Bible. I don't have time to go into all this, but the Camel Training Manual can help. There is an online version available at the following link:http://www.gracecommunitychurch.org.uk/resources/CamelTrainingManual.pdf

 Final thoughts



I know this is probably a lot to digest. One website that might be helpful would behttp://www.answering-islam.org. I do plan on writing a subsequent post with a list of resources on Islam. A final suggestion is to be open to the Holy Spirit's leading. This is probably the best suggestion at times. Pray as you share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the Muslim. Do not denigrate the Qur'an, nor Muhammad, unless you want to be quickly shut off. Be like Paul when he shared with the Athenians on Mars Hill. The Muslims have some truth, but not all of it. We are to share all of the Truth of the Gospel to them. One method may be to start with Genesis, explain the sacrificial system and how it was not sufficient for salvation, but that Jesus Christ is. The Old Testament points to Christ. If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

The Arabic Name for God, Allah

The question has often arisen among Christians, particularly Western Christians as to whether or not the name Allah can be used to refer to God as a Christian. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about who Allah is and what He represents in the various faiths. I aim to get rid of a lot of misconceptions in this post and even touch on the use of the name Isa (Jesus) being used as well.



Is the God of Islam (Allah as they call him) different from the God of Christianity or the God of Judaism?



Yes and No. In reality, the God of Christianity stands out as the most unique in that He provided a definite way of salvation through Jesus Christ. Muslims and Jews do not unknowingly worship a different god. They have one god in their respective belief systems. What they do worship is one god, however. What they deny is salvation through Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. That is where the controversy lies with both Judaism and Islam.



A lot of the attributes of God as listed in Islam are similar to the attributes of God in Christianity. God is love, patient, kind, merciful, judging, etc. The Muslims deny God as Father, but we can affirm together nearly every attribute that the Muslim acknowledges. Some of the concepts might be different, such as different concepts of God being love, but we can acknowledge that the names are the same. So, where's the controversy?



It lies in the origins of the name Allah. Allah is short for al-ilah which simply means the god (Phil Parshall, The Cross and the Crescent, p. 30). This is essential in showing that there is no other god before or after Allah. He is the one god.  So, can a Muslim background believer still call God, Allah, after conversion? I would say yes and here's why. The meaning has changed. All these years, one has been "worshiping" an impersonal god named Allah. You can only hope for salvation once you die, but there is no hope. All of a sudden, you have come to realize that Allah did have a son named Jesus Christ who died for your sins so that you can be saved. Yes, I did use the same name. You see, the meaning has changed. I would ask the naysayers what name they would use for God for a Muslim background believer in an Arab context? Is there one? Not that I can find. Arabic Christians and Jews used the name Allah before Muhammad came around and began introducing the Allah of Islam. One can find it in literature predating Muhammad. What about the supposed idea that Allah was a moon god and that Muhammad picked one god as the supreme being? While that is possible, there is no evidence to suggest this. All the "research" done on this has only been done with the presupposition that this is what happened. In short, there is nothing wrong with using the name of Allah as long as we are clear on meaning that it is the God of the Bible and not the impersonal god of the Muslims.



There is also a charge that one should not use the name of Isa when referring to Jesus. This is really kind of silly, if you ask me, and just nitpicky. This controversy came up back in February when Rick Warren invoked the name of Isa in his prayer at the Presidential inauguration. Frankly, I'm disgusted at the attitudes that many Christians displayed with regards to this non-issue. Muslims understand the name of Isa to refer to Jesus. The Qur'an even refers to Jesus as the Messiah at times (Surah 3:38-48). I've actually learned something here. Apparently Arab Christians use the name "Yasu," a derivative of the Hebrew, "Yeshua," to refer to Jesus. Now, I don't know about you, but every Arab Christian I met in my travels in Jordan, Israel/Palestine, and Egypt used the name Isa with the exception that they added "al Masi" on the end, meaning, Jesus the Messiah. The Muslims will just use Isa. By added "the Messiah," one is indicating that they are a Christian. This seems pretty clear. Now, maybe Yasu is used by some Christians, but I never heard it once and a Muslim is not going to have a clue as to what you are talking about. The American Christian's hatred of Muslims becomes clear when one has to look into deeper meanings expressed by one's Christian prayer. Warren was already under attack for accepting the opportunity to pray anyway. He used the Hebrew name of Jesus, Yeshua, in his prayer too, but no one called him to account for that. The Jews don't believe in Jesus. They despise Him. Even the Muslims honor Jesus more than the Jews. Yet, when it comes to things of Islam versus things of Judaism, the Christians always side with the Jews. God is not a god of partiality, but desires people from every tribe and nation to worship Him. This includes both Jews and Muslims. We cannot continue to get lost in playing semantic name games. Let's just tell them the Gospel, that Jesus died and rose again so that they might have life eternally if they believe (have faith).

Islam 101 - Some Basics

I was responding to a thread on a Christian forum about what Islam is and came up with the following. I thought I would cross-post over here.

The word Islam means, "to submit". The word Muslim means, "one who submits".



Muhammad was a man who claimed to have a "vision" but wasn't sure if it was real and so he asked his "Christian" wife who confirmed it for him as did her cousin.



Allah was the name used for God by Jews and Christians at the time and actually means "the God" emphasizing a monotheistic belief.



There are several different sects of Islam: Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi.



The majority of Muslims are Sunni and include Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Shi'ites are Iranians and Iraqis. Sufis are spread out, but a good number are in Turkey and Pakistan. Sufis are considered the mystics and often seek to become "one" with God. One could call them the "charismatics" of Islam.



Muslims follow 5 pillars. Recitation of Shahada (There is no god but Allah...), pray 5 times a day, alms-giving, pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj), fasting during Ramadan.



Some will say Jihad (Holy war/struggle) is a 6th pillar, but that's extremely debatable. The pillars are not found in the Qur'an, but in the Hadith (traditions).



The Qur'an can really be broken up in two parts, Meccan and Medinan.



The early years were spent in Mecca and were largely peaceful and can be seen in the early parts of the Qur'an if one were to put it chronologically. The latter years were Medinan, in which he had finally become a powerful leader and the Jews and Christians finally started coming against him. One can see that in the writings of the later parts of the Qur'an, chronologically.



Sharia law comes from the Hadith (traditions) which are sayings of Muhammad, Aisha, and/or other disciples of Muhammad. In fact, many Muslims follow the Hadith more than the Qur'an. Most Muslims do not know exactly what the Qur'an says, even though many may have memorized as a young child.



Many Shi'ites also follow a branch called the Twelvers. Meaning which there are 12 Imams, the 12th of which disappeared and is expected to return again. Ahmadinejad of Iran is one of these, which may explain a lot of his words and actions.



On the concept of Jihad, there are three views:

1) Inner struggle - fighting within oneself to keep oneself pure

2) Outward struggle only if attacked.

3) Declare Holy War on all infidels.



This is really just a summary. 

The Puritan Library Resource

I want to point you to an amazing resource page I have found from Monergism. It's called the Puritan Library. On it, they have made available lots of free pdfs, mobis, epubs, and html pages of books by puritan authors. You will find Richard Sibbes, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Thomas Watson, Thomas Brooks, and many others. You are supposed to be able to get the epubs to be able to show up in iBooks on iPod/iPhone/iPad by dragging into iTunes, but for some reason it's not working for me. Let me know if it works for you. I have yet to get mobis to show up in Kindle for iPod unless they are ones that get synced. Oh yeah, here's the link: The Puritan Library.

Desiring God National Conference Media and Summary

Desiring God has compiled summaries and posted the media of the recent conference held in Minneapolis, MN.

Sessions included:

1. Rick Warren - The Battle For Your Mind
2. Speaker Panel with DeYoung, Parson, Piper, and Tchividjian
3. R. C. Sproul - Thinking Deeply in the Ocean of Revelation: The Bible and the Life of the Mind
4. Thabiti Anyabwile - Thinking for the Sake of Global Faithfulness: Confronting Islam with the Mind of Christ
5. Albert Mohler - The Way the World Thinks: Meeting the Natural Mind in the Mirror and in the Marketplace
6. Speaker Panel with Piper, Anyabwile, Chan, and Mohler
7. Francis Chan - Think Hard, Stay Humble: The Life of the Mind and the Peril of Pride
8. John Piper - The Life of the Mind and Love of God

You can find the summaries and the media at this post.

Religion, irreligion, and the Gospel

We've started small groups at church and the study we're doing is Tim Keller's "The Gospel in Life."  It's already been rather convicting in that we examine our heart and the motivation for doing things. He talks of three ways of living. One is being religious, that is being moral. It's being moral for the sake of being moral. A lot of Christians may be even like this. They believe that they obey and therefore they are accepted. The irreligious don't care either way. These are the atheists, the agnostics, or just the average person. They may be moral or not. They live like they want to. The third way is the Gospel way. These are those who trust in Christ. Their mindset is, they're accepted, therefore they obey. 

He uses the  example of the prodigal son to show that the younger brother is the irreligious, but is one who repents as a result of the Gospel. The elder brother represents the religious. He's moral, but that doesn't mean he's saved. The true elder brother is Jesus Christ, who, even though he has everything, gives it up for us.

Which are you? Are you good for the sake of being good? Do you not care? Or, are you good because of the Gospel in your life?

An Indecent Religion?

An Unitarian Universalist minister, a retired United Methodist Minister, and a professor of religious studies get together. Sounds like the setup for a bad joke, right? Well, it's not really. These are the three people who wrote an opinion piece in The State newspaper on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 titled, "Jones, Summers, Evans: An indecent religion." That might not sound so bad, except the subject(s) being railed against are those Christians who would dare to say that homosexuality is a sin in today's culture.  In the article, they complain about stereotyping while doing it themselves. Let's look at how the article starts off:

Thousands of straight and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people from across South Carolina and the Southeast celebrated SC Pride Day on Sept. 4 in downtown Columbia. It was a joyful celebration of the diversity of the human family with a parade down Main Street, a festival in Finlay Park, rainbow flags and banners, colorful costumes and families with children and pets on picnic blankets in the warm afternoon sun.



The diversity of the human family? Really? You exposed children to these images(not all are offensive, but a few are)? The next three paragraphs are quite telling on where these authors are headed in this article:

Not everyone was feeling joyful, however. Along the parade route, some protestors shouted angry words and carried rejecting signs laced with biblical quotations.

They represented a fundamentalist strand of religion that is found not only in Christianity but in other religions as well. Whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, fundamentalists share at least one thing in common: relegating women and gays to second-class citizenship.

In South Carolina, this anti-gay version of Christianity is strongly represented by the Palmetto Family Council, a subsidiary of the Focus on the Family media empire founded by the religious right guru James Dobson. Because the Gay Pride Festival receives city and county grants like other events that attract tourists and bring business to our city, Palmetto Family Council president Oran Smith complained that the public expenditures amount to a public endorsement of what he calls the “gay lifestyle.”

So, here we go with the stereotyping. It seems that their biggest beef is with the Palmetto Family Council and Oran Smith, not necessarily with these "fundamentalist Christians" as they so-called them. Their definition of "fundamentalist Christian" needs work, first of all. By definition, a fundamentalist Christian is one who believes in the fundamentals of the Christian faith as defined in the Bible. Jesus died for our sins and he rose from the dead on the third day to conquer death. His death and resurrection provide the substitutionary atonement for our sins, so that if we believe in Him, we might have eternal life. That is fundamentalism, at it's core. According to these authors, it's apparently anyone who speaks against homosexuality. Oh yeah, and we relegate women to second-class citizenship, as well. Where do they come up with this stuff? As a point of disclosure, I did have the opportunity to meet Oran Smith once, and he's a pretty nice guy. As to the point of the public funding of this gay pride parade, including the use of government workers to close off streets and redirect traffic, it is akin to a government endorsement of religion. Had this been a religious parade, there would have been all sorts of outcry by the very same people calling those against the gay pride parade, fundamentalists. On another note, I do not necessarily endorse what the sign holders were doing. I believe there are much more effective ways at ministering the Gospel of repentance to those who are in sin.

Another point which seems to be made quite in ignorance is this:

When the phrase “gay lifestyle” is used, there is always an underlying assumption that homosexuality is a choice. Sexual orientation, whether straight or gay, is a biological given. This is a matter of fact, and the major professional organizations in medicine, psychiatry, psychology and many others have indicated that this issue needs no further debate.

They seemed to have missed the fact that there is no proven science that homosexuality is biologically given. Can they point to actual scientific evidence on this? I have seen none. In fact, the mapping of the human genome itself dispelled the notion that there is a "gay gene." None was found. They're spouting the same tired argument thread that the Darwinists do in trying to prove we came from apes. There is no concrete scientific evidence on this. When you have some concrete evidence on this, join the conversation. Otherwise, you just sound ignorant.

Another paragraph that made me chuckle:

But many in the religious right are notorious for disregarding the facts that they don’t like — believing for instance that abstinence-only education is effective at preventing teen pregnancy, that human activity is not responsible for global warming or that evolution is “just a theory.” This group may not like the existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people or the fact that young people have sex or that all life has evolved from earlier, simpler forms of life, but liking or disliking the facts doesn’t change them.

While abstinence-only education may have been taught wrongly over the years or the studies have been limited in scope, the fact remains that remaining abstinent does prevent pregnancy. Human activity has not been proven to be responsible for global warming. That much is true. Many of the advocates for that line of thinking have been proven to be frauds. Haven't these guys been paying attention. And it has yet to be proven that evolution is a fact. Do you have an example of a living ape-man? It's not the existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people that we don't like. it's the sin we don't like. Now maybe we have not been good at pulling the planks out of our eyes. Divorce, for example. We should be preaching against divorce as strongly as we preach against homosexuality. Divorce is just as destructive and is just as much a sin. That's a topic for another day, however.

The final part of the article says this and this is where they really do not understand Jesus at all:

Sadly, the Gay Pride Festival was described as being “indecent” by the Palmetto Family Council president. What exactly is meant here? That festival attendees are engaging in sex acts at Finlay Park? Many homophobic groups and individuals seem to be preoccupied with the sexual activity of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. Indeed, the religious right as a whole seems to be inordinately engrossed with sexual issues, from homosexuality and abortion to sex education and pornography. With the overwhelming problems of poverty, unemployment and hunger in our society, this continual fixation on sexual matters promotes a blindness to the complex social problems that surround us.

What is “indecent” is when people distort the religion of Jesus and his ethic of love into a political ideology of fear, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. Jesus taught and practiced an unconditional love and compassion that accepts people as they are and affirms their worth and dignity as human beings. Yet homophobic Christians preach a love with strings attached. They say, “We will love and accept you if you will change and be like us.” It’s easy to love a mirror image of yourself. The test of love is accepting and respecting someone who is different from you.

It has become popular in our day for people to wear their religion on their sleeve, literally, in the form of bracelets with the letters WWJD. What would Jesus do indeed?

Well, if you look at the pictures I linked to earlier, a few seem to be offensive. Men dressing as women is against God's word (Deuteronomy 22:5).  Are we preoccupied with sexual issues? It might not be us that are preoccupied with it when we're not the ones attempting to criminalize speaking out against homosexuality. Homosexuals have effectually won lawsuits against photographers for not wanting to shoot a gay "wedding" and churches for not allow gay "weddings" on certain pieces of property. With the advent of homosexual "marriage" potentially being legalized nationwide, one wonders if churches as a whole will be targeted, especially since ministers do have to get a state license to perform ceremonies. Churches should not be put in that position of having to choose to perform weddings for either heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. 

These authors missed the point of Jesus' words. Did he love people unconditionally? Sure. Did he openly advocate sin? No. But that is what they are asking us to do. Let's affirm homosexual people for who they are. That's what Jesus did, right? Wrong. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more (John 8:11). Justification is the opposite of condemnation and that is exactly what Jesus did. He justified her. Declared her righteous. Why? Because I believe that she had a repentant heart. Jesus unconditional love caused her to repent of her sin and to go and sin no more. Now, there is some question about whether that story really happened or not, since it's not in the earliest manuscripts. That's not the point. I know of no one who wears WWJD anymore, so, that's a non-sequitor. What I do know is this. Jesus is doing something. That is, He is saving sinners. Sinners like me. I can love and respect a homosexual, but that does not mean I have condone their sin of homosexuality. I should hope that these authors go back and read what they wrote and see how much of a strawman they wrote, based on their own presuppositions and stereotypes. It's not about a conversation with them, apparently. Let's have a real conversation about homosexuality. Not one that wants to paint all those opposed to homosexuality as bigots and homophobes.