A Response to Mujtahid2006, Part I

A Fair Response and Invitation to Dialogue

Dr. Oakley, interesting video. I like the fact that you make a decent response and other Christians aren't so eloquent as you. But I'd like to answer a few points in your video. And I'd like this to be the beginning of a discussion between me and you, and anyone else that would care to join in and add their input, about Islam and Christianity.

What are the real arguments that Muslims propose and what are the actual counter-arguments that Christians really use to defend their faith?

I have just a few minutes to provide a response this evening to Mujtahid 2006. Let me first say I appreciate the spirit of the response. It's unfortunately a lot different than a lot of the responses that are actually offered on YouTube and in other forums.

I only have a few moments this evening because tomorrow morning I get up very early. I'm addressing Islam to a large group of men here where I live in the United States. So I've got to be fairly brief.

So I won't be able to respond to everything that was said in this particular video that I'm responding to. But I'd like to at least hit some of the first points that were made. But before I do that, I sort of looked around at some of the videos that were offered and I stumbled upon one where you were going after J. Smith, I think rather unfairly.

Paul, 1 Corinthians 9, and Christian Freedom

But worse than that, you then went after the Apostle Paul. I would strongly recommend to the Muslims who want to be taken seriously as individuals who, as you said, rationally study the issues and present rational arguments, to use that 1 Corinthians 9, Romans 3, 7 passage the way that Muslims tend to use it, which was not how the early generations of Muslims viewed the Apostle Paul, by the way, really damages credibility.

Because if you would read 1 Corinthians 9 in context and actually allow it to speak for itself, you would see that Paul's intention is that we as Christians are to limit our freedoms so that we might not provide unnecessary offense to any of the groups to which we seek to present the Gospel.

To attribute deceitfulness to the Apostle Paul here is just unworthy of any serious reading of the text. So I just saw that in passing and thought that I would mention that. You made reference to the fact that God is not a man.

The Incarnation and God's Ability to Enter Creation

I've heard many Muslims say this. And Christians, of course, don't believe that God is a man. Christians believe that God has eternally been God. He's the creator of all things. And that mankind is that which God created.

The doctrine of the Incarnation is that God, who has eternally been spirit and is the creator of all things, has the power, has the ability, if it is his desire to do so, to enter into his own creation by taking on a true human nature.

Now, I would simply have to ask, upon what basis would you deny to Allah the ability to enter into his own creation? I know that a Muslim would say he would never do such a thing. Fine. But on what rational basis would you say that Allah can create a being, but then he cannot enter into existence as that being?

Not by ceasing to be God, but take on, for example, a true human nature. That is what Christians believe that the Son did, not the Father or the Spirit. The Son took on a true human nature. And the earliest Christian documents written long before the Gnostics or anybody else came along, the earliest Christian documents bear out this presentation.

And so when you quote Hosea 11 .9, you quote Numbers 23 .19, those are texts that I have used for many, many years to witness to Mormons, for example. Mormons are not Christians. Mormons are polytheists.

They believe that God was once a man who lived on another planet, that there are literally billions and billions and unlimited number of other gods. And their beliefs are actually much farther away at the most fundamental level from Christianity than Islam is.

And so I have used Numbers 23 .19, Hosea 11 .9 and a whole host of others many times to demonstrate to them that God has eternally been God, that the Gospel is not that men can become gods, but that God became a man, the person of Christ Jesus to provide the perfect atonement for sin.

So that is an issue that we have addressed many, many times. You said that we need to dispute rationally, and I certainly believe that. However, upon what basis are we to reason? We both believe in Revelation.

And I as a Christian believe that the Trinity is a revealed doctrine. It's not something I look out at the stars or I look out at trees and I see the Trinity revealed there. No, the Trinity is revealed in the incarnation of the Son, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God, and then the distinction that is made between those divine persons.

And so Christians believe in the doctrine of Trinity because they believe in all of the Bible, not just in certain parts of it. Would you really have a respect for a Muslim who only accepts al-Bahra, doesn't believe in any of the rest of the Koran?

Or picks and chooses what he will and will not believe within the text of the Koran? Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because we believe in all of Scripture. We don't do the cherry-picking, the tearing the text apart and say, I'm going to accept this, I'm not going to accept that.

We seek to harmonize all of Revelation so that we can hear God speaking in His Word. You then made reference to something I had said. What I had said was that the early generations of Muslims did not make an allegation of textual corruption in regards to the Bible.

The Qur'an, the Bible, and Early Muslim Claims about Corruption

And I believe that I can back that up fairly strongly. Examine the earliest sources outside of the Koran. Look at the Hadith. Look at, you know, right here in my own library there's al-Tabari sitting right there on the top.

There's Bukhari and Muslim and Dawud and Ibn Kathir and so on and so forth. I've taken the time to obtain these resources and it takes many generations in Islamic history before the argument is made that the actual text of the Bible has been altered.

And I think there's a reason for this. Let me read into your hearing, and I know you're certainly aware of these, but many Christians are watching these videos as well and they might want to know this.

Some of the text from the Koran that I think would substantiate this. For example, in Surah 29, Ayah 46, Dispute ye not with the people of the Book, except with means better than mere disputation, unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury.

But say, and here's what the Muslim is to say, We believe in the revelation which has come down to us, and in that which came down to you. Our Allah and your Allah is one, and it is to him we bow in Islam.

We believe in the revelation which came down to you. Now if you're talking to Christians in the days of Muhammad, what revelation do they possess? This doesn't say in the revelation that came down to you but now is lost and which no one can see anymore.

And if you go to Surah 5, verse 46 and following, there the people of the Gospel are told to judge by what is contained and what has been revealed to them. Well if they don't possess it anymore, how can they judge?

And then in Surah 2, which I mentioned earlier, Ayah 285, we read, The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one of them believeth in Allah, his angels, his books, and his apostles.

We make no, no, books, books, plural, not book, books, and his apostles. We make no distinction, they say, between one and another of his apostles. And they say, We hear and we obey, we seek their forgiveness, our Lord, and to thee is the end of all journeys.

Books, plural, which then would fit with Surah 4, verse 136, O ye who believe, believe in Allah and his apostle, and the scripture which he hath sent to his apostle, and the scripture which he hath sent to those before him.

And who denieth Allah, his angels, his books, his apostles, books again? And the day of judgment hath gone far, far astray. And so I think these are just some of the many texts that we can look at in the Qur 'an that made those early generations of Muslims go, If the Bible could be corrupted, then the Qur 'an could be corrupted.

And there was just nothing on the surface. Well, there's texts about people twisting the scriptures, and you'd have to believe, you'd have to accept that people twist the Qur 'an as well. But that's a far cry from saying that Allah had allowed the books which he had revealed, Natsal, to send down, yes?

That he had sent down, that Allah allowed them to be corrupted. That's a far cry. It's a completely different assertion, and that starts to be made much farther down in Islamic history. You talked about using the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus was not what Christians believe him to be.

Exegesis, Context, and Reading the New Testament Fairly

Well, I think you should use the New Testament. However, my point all along has been that you must use the very same rules of exegesis, fairness, context, language, background, in interpreting the New Testament that you would rightly demand is to be used in the study of the Qur 'an.

It is the fact that, as in that very video I was referring to earlier, where you grossly misrepresent the context of Paul's words about being all things to all people so that he might win some, or Romans 3, 7, where he says, if my lie results in the glory of God.

He's talking about how our actions, lies, sin, whatever it might be, result in the glory of God because God judges sin. You've just got to look at the context, and you wouldn't be making those accusations because Paul, you wouldn't.

Well, as I said, I had to be brief, and I wasn't brief. I even went over, had to edit it back. I apologize. As time allows, I would like to continue this dialogue in response. Thank you very much.