Part 1. A Better Way for Everyday Dialogue between Muslims and Christians
“You’re going to burn in Hell!” Abdulhaq roared at me from across the table. “You refuse to accept the clear revelation of Allah, so you’re going straight to Hell”. I leaned in and pointed my finger at his chest and screamed “No you’re going straight to Hell for rejecting God’s revelation in Jesus!”. Eyes bulging out of his head, Abdulhaq raised is right hand and before I could react he slapped me…on the shoulder. “Ya akhi (my brother), this is why I like debating with you so much- you actually care enough to condemn me to hell!”- his enraged expression had instantly transformed into a mischievous grin and he reached for the teapot by my hand and refilled my empty teacup. I leaned back and laughed “yeah, well, I feel the same way brother- it’s way better to debate with you about who’s going to hell, then spoon-feeding an atheist reasons to believe in God.”.
I was enjoying this discussion with my friend, but deep down, I was feeling dissatisfied. Every time I had discussed Islam and Christianity with Abdulhaq, the discussion had stalled out in the same way. Every time we would get to a really foundational disagreement between our two worldviews, it felt like we would hit a wall, where it was impossible to move forward because all the arguments I had learned challenged Abdulhaq’s basic foundational beliefs.
Abdulhaq, like all Muslims, believed that the Qur’an was revelation from Allah, that it was perfectly truthful and preserved, that the Bible was severely corrupted, and that the life and sayings of Muhammed were faithfully preserved in the authentic hadith literature. I had arguments against all of these beliefs, but I was frustrated to see that when I attempted to use them, the conversation quickly turned into a very technical discussion about manuscript numbers and dates, about the minutiae of particular words or passages in the Qur’an or the Bible, or about the technical details about oral traditions and the people who transmitted them. That is to say, that we would get stuck in the weeds, way over our heads in technical details that, in all truth, neither of us really understood. Those discussions would always end with us scratching our heads and saying “why did we start debating this, and why does this matter?”.
After a few discussions had gone down this road, we mutually decided to try debating different topics that were more theological and less technical. So we tried discussing the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the morality of the Bible vs. the Quran’s commands, and more accessible topics. However, these discussions also quickly fell off the rails, as at some point, one of us would question the other’s sources “yeah I know your book says that, but I don’t trust your book”, and then we’d get sucked back into another unhelpful technical debate. Normally, by the end of these debates, we’d both be fed up, and like today, would end up resorting to “friendly reminders” of each other’s pending damnation. So, as I sat in the Moroccan coffee shop, looking at my friend, who I was having a hard time getting through to, I prayed that the Lord would show me a better way forward.
In most apologetics literature, and most debates between Muslims and Christians, there is an extensive discussion on whether the Qur’an or the Bible is more trustworthy. This usually involves discussions about each book’s respective manuscript evidence, oral transmission history, alleged contradictions, prophecies, linguistic marvels, and historical corroboration. Each one of these items would take decades of study to master, so in a normal conversation, a good discussion on all of them is virtually impossible.
If you try to just stick to one argument, even if you win that exchange, you haven’t really changed your opponent’s mind, because you’ve only debunked one out of six or seven reasons he has for believing his book. Not only that, but even if you are able to somehow knowledgably defeat your opponent on every topic, your argument is still not going to be convincing because you are discussing matters of fact which are not intuitively obvious to your interlocuter- he’s kind of just taking your word for it, that you’re right about your facts.
For example, if a key element of your argument that we can trust the Bible is “we have manuscript evidence from the book of John that dates to the early second century” your Muslim friend may believe you, but your argument as a whole is unlikely to be so convincing that it’ll change his mind in any meaningful way. That’s because the dating of New Testament manuscripts isn’t something that is intuitively obvious to him, so it’s unlikely to shake his worldview. And that’s if he’s relatively open-minded. If your interlocuter happens to have a contrarian streak, or is just plain suspicious of you, he may ask you to prove that there are manuscripts that date to the second century. Even if you happen to remember the names of those manuscripts, you’re not going to remember the scholars who dated them, what their reasons were for dating them as they did, and why those reasons are more convincing than any counter arguments. So, either you’re going to have to say “Trust me bro” which is not convincing, or try to pull up this information on Google on short notice which again, makes the conversation devolve into something ultimately meaningless and unhelpful.
Another fundamental problem with this approach is that it often violates all of a Muslim’s fundamental assumptions about the world. For example, if you argue that the hadith are totally unreliable, then a Muslim is going to require an outrageously high amount of evidence to even consider that to be true because the reliability of authentic hadiths are a core element of his worldview. It would be the difference between someone telling you that the sky on earth is purple vs. that the sky on Venus is purple. One of those two claims is going to require a lot more evidence before you take it seriously because it violates a fundamental belief about the world that you hold.
So, in our search for a better way forward in everyday discussions, what we need are arguments which
Are (as much as possible) reliant on intuitive logical argumentation rather than on brute statements of fact
Do not require extensive technical expertise to understand and engage in
Violate as few fundamental assumptions of the target audience as possible
The roadmap ahead for this blog series
The argument that I think is most productive for Muslims and Christians to have is based on the central miracle claim in both religions. I think the most fundamental question to be answered is “Is the fundamental miracle claim of Christianity or Islam more likely to be true?”. As we’ll see shortly, the two miracle claims are mutually exclusive, so they both can’t be true. This question helps sharpen the conversation between Muslims and Christians down to the most critical point of difference between the two worldviews. So, here’s how we’re going to figure this question out.
We’ll quickly discuss why comparing these two miracles is justified and required
Then we’ll figure out which sources are reliable. Both Muslims and Christians reject each other’s sources, so we’ll try to come to a place where both sides can (at least for the sake of argument) accept each other’s sources.
After that we’ll finally be able to dive into an analysis of the respective miracle claims and try to figure out which one is more rationally justified to believe in.
For Christians, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the central miraculous claim. If he did that, then that validates his claims to divinity, and his teachings. If he did not do that, then as the apostle Paul famously said “then we are a bunch of losers” (my own highly technical translation of the Greek). Additionally helpful in the Christian-Muslim dialogue, is that most Muslims believe that the Qur’an denies the death and resurrection of Jesus. There has been debate about the exact meaning of Surah 4:152 since the earliest Islamic centuries, but today, the majority of Muslim scholars and laypeople agree that when the Qur’an says “they [the jews] did not kill him, nor did the crucify him, rather it only appeared to them as such” it is denying the historical event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. This means that if Jesus really did die, then the Qur’an is false, and Islam is also false. Therefore, both Christians and Muslims have good reasons to care deeply about whether the central miracle claim of Christianity is true or not.
The central miracle claim of Islam is the revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammed. The Islamic claim is that Muhammed was given the Qur’an orally by the angel Gabriel over the course of 23 years. This Qur’an is self-evidently miraculous due to its inimitable beauty, spiritual depth, literary sophistication, prophecies, and historical accuracy. If this miracle actually happened, then that validates Muhammed as the prophet of God, and, since for the sake of this book we will accept that the Qur’an denies the death and resurrection of Jesus, it would also invalidate the central miracle claim of Christianity.
Therefore, by comparing Islam and Christianity’s respective central miracles, we have a limited, mutually exclusive area of inquiry that strikes right at the heart of both religions.
Is this a fair comparison?
In order for this argument to work, we need to make sure we’re not comparing apples to oranges and this comparison between the two miracle claims is fair. So, to be fair, there are a couple differences between the two situations which need to be clarified.
First, some Muslims would probably object to the idea that the revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammed is the central miracle of Islam- rather, they would say that the Qur’an itself is the central miracle. As I mentioned, they believe it is self-evidently miraculous, and therefore, to prove that Islam is true, all we have to do is prove that the Qur’an is divine based on the text we have today, rather than combing through historical accounts to figure out exactly how it was revealed. They would also add that the miracle of the Qur’an can be experienced by someone today, whereas the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection cannot be experienced today, as it was a singular event that took place two thousand years ago. There are a few responses I would have to such a critique.
First, I would say that the miracle of the resurrection can also be experienced today by personal experience with the risen Jesus. Christians do not merely claim historical knowledge of the resurrection, but also continued, personal experience with the risen Jesus. Therefore, the Christian miracle has as much experiential evidence today as the Muslim miracle. Second, it’s not true that all that needs to be proved for Islam to be true is that the Qur’an is divine. The reason for this is simple: Islam is far more than just the Qur’an. As Muslims have virtually universally acknowledged throughout history, Islam is a worldview that is based on the Qur’an, as well as the life and sayings of Muhammed. In fact, Muslims[1] cite the Qur’an to defend the idea that Muhammed’s example of life and sayings are authoritative, and are in fact, divine revelation. For example, famous Islamic scholar Imam al-Shafi’i called Muhammed “Sahib ul Wahyain” (the owner of two revelations) in reference to the fact that Muhammad provided his followers with two revelations- the Qur’an, and his life and sayings.
For all of Islamic history up until today, Muslims have interpreted the Qur’an in light of the life and sayings of Muhammed, which, as we will see later, leads to some interesting conclusions. However, for now, it’s enough to say that the Qur’an is not the only pillar upon which Islam stands. To hammer this point home, we can look to the Shahada- the Islamic confession of faith. If a person says the Shahada sincerely in the presence of witnesses, he is a Muslim. So what does this Shahada say? It says “There is no god but Allah (La ilaha illa Allah) and Muhammed is his messenger (wa Muhammadu rasul Allahi)”. So even in the fundamental Islamic confession of faith, we see the centrality of Muhammed’s prophethood to Islam.
So back to the Muslim objection to me comparing Jesus’ resurrection with the Qur’an- why can’t a Muslim use the prophecies in the Qur’an, or it’s unique literary style, or it’s historical accuracy as sufficient proof of the truth of Islam? It’s because, just because the Qur’an is of supernatural origins, does not mean that Islam is true. I know that sounds crazy at first but bear in mind what we just talked about. The life and example of Muhammed is as central to the Islamic worldview as the Qur’an is. So if the Qur’an were of supernatural origins, but were not from Muhammed, then Islam would fall apart as well. That would mean that the majority of the Islamic worldview which is based on the life and teachings of Muhammed would have to be thrown out instantly such as:
Islamic praxis (how to pray, how to fast, how to give charity are not specified in the Qur’an- all the details on how to do those things come from Muhammed’s example)
Islamic law (based primarily on Muhammad’s teachings, life, and rulings)
Qur’anic interpretation (since any given verse can only be fully understood in the context of what was happening in Muhammed’s life at the time when that verse was revealed to him).
Islamic theology which is based on interpretations of the Qur’an reliant upon the life of Muhammed as a reference point
All we would have would be a supernatural book that would need to be completely re interpreted to establish a whole new religion in the ashes of Islam. If this scenario sounds far-fetched I understand. Many people would assume that the majority of Islamic doctrine comes from the Qur’an, however, that’s simply not true. The Qur’an is often vague and ambiguous, and it simply does not address a lot of issues. Modern scholars like Dr. Gabriel Said Reynolds from Notre Dame have begun to try to offer differing interpretations of the Qur’an that do not rely on Muhammed’s life and example as an interpretive lens, and they are getting very different results than the traditional Islamic narrative.
So what does this all mean? It means that a Muslim needs to show more than that the Qur’an is supernatural, he needs to show that the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammed specifically. If he doesn’t do that, then he hasn’t demonstrated the truth of Islam. We can do a thought experiment to show this to be the case.
Suppose a non-Muslim were to argue that the Qur’an wasn’t revealed to Muhammed but to someone else (Khadijah or Abu Talib, or Bahira) and Muhammed came in later and said that the revelation came to him first. A Muslim couldn’t respond to this claim with “well the Qur’an is supernatural, look at its literary style and prophecies”. That response wouldn’t address the argument because if true, all it would demonstrate is that the Qur’an is from God, but that wouldn’t follow necessarily that Muhammed is a prophet of God. Therefore, if a Muslim wants to defend Islam as a worldview, he has to defend the divinity of the Qur’an (which Muslims typically do a good job of engaging in) and defend the prophethood of Muhammed.
The strongest version of this Islamic argument would be:
The Qur’an is divine due to it’s literary style, prophecies, and historical accuracy
Muhammed was the first human to recite the Qur’an (he didn’t steal it from anyone else)
Therefore, God revealed the Qur’an to Muhammed
Therefore, Muhammed was a prophet
Therefore, we are justified in believing in both the revelation of the Qur’an and the revelation of Muhammed’s life and sayings
Even If we accept premise one for the sake of argument, how do we know premise two is true? This is where Muslims will point to the earliest sources which answer this exact question- the hadith literature. The hadiths are stories and sayings of Muhammed compiled by Muslims a couple centuries after Muhammed’s death. These hadiths clearly show that Muhammed was the (human) source of the Qur’an, and if the Qur’an is divine, that would mean that Muhammed was a true prophet of God.
But here we get to our first roadblock to actually comparing the revelation of the Qur’an to the resurrection of Jesus- Muslims and Christians don’t trust each others’ sources. Christians don’t trust the hadith literature or the Qur’an, and Muslims don’t trust the New Testament.
So, if we’re going to have a productive dialogue about whose miracle claims are more plausible, we need to get to a place where (at least for the sake of argument) Muslims and Christians can accept each others’ sources as somewhat historically reliable. And I think that’s totally possible. In the next post, I’m going to talk about how Muslims assess the reliability of the hadith literature and hopefully, that will help us get a step closer to Christians and Muslims accepting each other’s sources at least for the sake of argument.
