Paul Williams and Zakir Hussain Exposed

I don’t want both

How true is the Bible according to Islam?  Islam has always had a love-hate relationship with the Bible. However if I had to but the Islamic view of the Bible into one sentence I would simply say this:  The Bible is as true as Islam allows it to be.

Now, we know that modern Islamic apologetics is essentially just quoting liberal Biblical scholars.  If I could summarize the Islamic view of liberal scholarship in one sentence, what would it be?  I’ll leave that until the end of the article.

Islamic apologist Paul Williams has recently posted two posts where he disputes two important NT verses.  He said that Mark 10:45 was a later addition to the text of Mark and quoted a liberal scholar.  He also said that Matthew 28:19 was a later addition to the text of Matthew based on the quotation of a liberal scholar.  Do you notice a pattern here?

Yesterday on Twitter, Williams quoted John 17:3 which reads:

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent

Williams then posted a meme related to the verse.  Here it is:

I simply asked Williams why he believes this is actually from Jesus because liberal scholars reject it.  I then quoted the commentary from the ultra liberal New American Bible Revised Edition which says:

This verse was clearly added in the editing of the gospel as a reflection on the preceding verse; Jesus nowhere else refers to himself as Jesus Christ.

Here is the conversation between myself and Paul Williams:

Liberalism that causes doubt on key Christian proof texts is accepted with no questions asked.  However, if it’s a text that Muslims (incorrectly) use as a proof text then liberalism is ignored.

Let’s take a look at another apologist who chooses selectively from the liberal smorgasbord based on whether the specific texts helps Islam or not.  Enter Zakir Hussain.  In the video below he is quoting the New American Bible.  I don’t believe it’s the revised edition but they both have the same footnote.  If you go to 3:40 you can clearly see that it’s the NAB or NABRE.

Now, we know that Zakir Hussain is famous for quoting liberals.  We can see he uses the ultra-liberal NAB and down below at 7:25 he quotes Bart Ehrman, Adolf von Harnack, and Rudolf Bultmann in one sentence.  These are extremely liberal scholars, not to mention later in the debate he quotes Robert Price.  Price thinks Jesus doesn’t exist.

Now, in the video below, Hussain quotes some NT verses that supposedly refute the deity of Christ.  The second one that he quotes is John 17:3.

So what do we have here with Hussain and Williams?  Both quote liberals, but both do it selectively.  When John 17:3 is quoted, the liberals are ignored but if a Christian quotes an NT proof text its liberalism to the rescue.  As I said at the beginning of the article, the Bible is as true as Islam allows it.  The same goes for liberal scholarship.  It’s as true as Islam allows it.  Islam is the muhayman over liberalism.

To Paul and Zakir;

I hope that you read this.  I just want the two of you to think about something.  Imagine how hard Christians have things.  When a Christian debates a Jew on whether Jesus Christ is the Messiah, we can’t just chuck parts of the OT we don’t like.  We have to accept the OT down to the letter.  We can’t call in the liberal calvary to save the day.  Imagine that!  However, truth be told its actually not that hard to defend that position.  In 1414 the famous Jewish convert to Christianity Geronimo de Santa Fe engaged in a debate alongside other Christians against Jewish scholars.  This is known as the Tortosa Disputation.  It was a debate organized and overseen by Antipope Benedict XIII.  After the debate, a thousand Jews accepted Christ and baptism of their own free will because of the arguments of Santa Fe.  He didn’t appeal to liberals, chuck OT texts, or use double standards because he didn’t need to.  Pretty amazing eh?  It’s something to think about.