About a month ago, Islamic apologist Paul Williams debated Greek Orthodox scholar and philosophical expert Jay Dyer. The topic was the deity of Christ, which is a common topic discussed between Christians and Muslims. I’ve never seen Dyer debate a Muslim before. Perhaps he has but I’ve never seen it. He dialogues a lot with Catholics on issues like Absolute Divine Simplicity and uncreated grace.
There are two things that I want to point out regarding this debate. The first is that I really liked the format. There was a lot of back and forth which allowed Dyer to spend a huge portion of the time exposing Williams’ constant appeal to liberals. On his blog, Williams said:
On reflection it’s clear Jay won that debate yesterday. I need to study/learn a lot about Christianity, the Bible, etc more before I can engage with him again. Thanks for the encounter Jay.
I agree with the assessment of Williams. I can only guess that the result comes from exposing Williams on his constant appeal to liberals. This is the standard procedure of every mainstream Muslim apologist whether it be Paul Williams, Mohammed Hijab, Adnan Rashid, Shabir Ally or any of the others.
The second part I want to talk about is the response of Paul Williams to Surah 5:116. When Dyer was reading the Superchats, someone asked why the Quran got the Trinity wrong and quoted Surah 5:116 to prove his point. This is at 2:04:00 of the above video.
Williams defends his assertion that Surah 5:116 is not talking about the Trinity but just a generic argument against deification and over-exaltation of Jesus and Mary. Williams talked about lofty titles given to Mary that supposedly make her a de-facto divinity.
To all my readers, this is a good test. Go watch the debate and ask yourself how you’d answer. I will share my answer here.
I would simply tell Williams that the context of Surah 5 shows that Surah 5:116 is arguing against what it thinks is the Trinity. We need to read the Quran in context to show this. The verse in question reads:
And God will say, “O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Take me and my mother as gods rather than God?’“ He will say, “Glory be to You! It is not for me to say what I have no right to. Had I said it, You would have known it. You know what is in my soul, and I do not know what is in Your soul. You are the Knower of the hidden.
– Surah 5:116
If this was all we had, Williams could get away with his interpretation. However, we have verses 73 and 75 which say:
They disbelieve those who say, “God is the third of three.” But there is no deity except the One God. If they do not refrain from what they say, a painful torment will befall those among them who disbelieve.
– Surah 5:73
The Messiah son of Mary was only a messenger, before whom other Messengers had passed away, and his mother was a woman of truth. They both used to eat food. Note how We make clear the revelations to them; then note how deluded they are.
– Surah 5:75
Now, verse 75 seems to be arguing for the same thing as verse 116. Now, the context for verse 75 is verse 73. If we read this verse carefully it shows that some disbelievers say “God is the third of three”. The Quran then corrects them by saying that there is only one God.
When Christians say that God is three to the Muslims(or some similar thing involving God and three), we are referring to the Trinity. When we say that God is three to a Muslim, we aren’t referring to the Father, Jesus and Mary. The Christians that Muhammad was arguing against in Surah 5 were preaching the Trinity but not going into detail. Since Muhammad couldn’t read, it made sense that he made a blunder on the Trinity. Williams is incorrect. Surah 5:116 is a Quranic polemic against what it thinks is the Trinity.
–I can only guess that the result comes from exposing Williams on his constant appeal to liberals. This is the standard procedure of every mainstream Muslim apologist whether it be Paul Williams, Mohammed Hijab, Adnan Rashid, Shabir Ally or any of the others.–
Perhaps our debators should start holding to a standard response: If the Muslims want to bring up liberal skeptics, then we will bring up the work of Muhammad Sven Kalisch, Tom Holland, Patricia Crone, Dan Gibson, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, Gerd R. Puin, Peter Townsend, Robert Spencer, Volker Popp, Christoph Luxenberg, Jay Smith… And perhaps some Hadith-rejecting, Quran-only Muslims such as Edip Yuksel.
The Muslim will probably respond that many of these are ‘haters’, unduly skeptical, conspiracy theorists… But are those sort of people also not among the liberal skeptics of the Bible?
I think Paul Williams was being ironic!
Doubt it, but who knows? Doesn’t matter though, Allan nailed the matter with this article.
Thanks for drawing my attention to it again.