My French Quran
As my readers know, my last post was about refuting the misuse of Surah 3, particularly verse 78 in the debate over Bible corruption. I posted my new post on Twitter like I always do and Islamic Apologist Paul Williams decided to respond. Well, he didn’t really respond to the points, only to my tweet.
He simply said that the Quran teaches Bible corruption. I responded by throwing out Surah 5:68 which is a clear unambiguous statement to the preservation of the Bible. He then said:
no it doesn’t say that. Just go and consult the academic western literature.
He then asked me if I could read Arabic. I said that I couldn’t and he went on to say the fact that I can’t read Arabic and have not consulted academic western literature means that my argument is baseless and wrong. He then said that I was a troll. That last part was somewhat rich seeing as he had responded to my initial tweet. If anything he was trolling me.
I can’t read Arabic and haven’t read “academic western literature” so I don’t know what I’m talking about. I suppose I can’t critique communism since I’ve only read the English translation of the Communist Manifesto and not the original German. I haven’t studied marxist academics either. I also continually asked Williams to provide a verse from the Quran that teaches Bible corruption. He didn’t cite a single one because deep down he knows that it doesn’t exist.
To everyone who reads this website, I have to ask? What do you think about this argument?
To the Muslims out there:
If you were to come to me and ask me where the Bible teaches Jesus is God so that you could look it up, would you be satisfied with a response like this? Would you be impressed if I told you that you couldn’t read Greek and needed to consult the literature produced by scholars like St. Athanasius of Alexandria, would you be impressed? No, you would probably think that I was being ridiculous.
Williams points out that I can’t read Arabic. Well, neither could the early Muslims. In Damascus, we know that the Muslims weren’t literate until well into the 9th century. In the Chronicles of St. Theophanes the Confessor we see this.
In the entry for September 1, 707 to August 31, 708 we read:
In this year Walid robbed the holy Catholic Church of Damascus out of the envy the sinner felt toward the Christians because of this church’s surpassing beauty. He also stopped the use of Greek in the public record books of the departments ordering them to be written in Arabic instead: that is, except for numbers, since it is impossible to write the number “one,” the number “two,” the number “three,” “eight and a half,” or “three in the feminine gender” in their language. Because of this their scribes are Christians even to the present day.
Later on we read:
In the entry for September 1, 759 to August 31, 760 we read:
In this year the Arabs, out of envy of the Christians, for a short time prevented them from being public scribes. However, they once more had to use the Christians for these matters because of their own inability to record the decisions.
To the present day has to be sometime after 813 AD as his chronicle ends there. Arab Muslims couldn’t read Arabic until well into the 9th century. I wonder what Williams would say about this. Obviously there was no academic western literature in this day. It also seems that the only ones who could read Arabic were the Christians and they wanted nothing to do with Islam. The Muslims who were reciting the Quran couldn’t read Arabic. Why should they be Muslim? According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad couldn’t even read Arabic. Why should Muhammad be a Muslim? Could you imagine how a conversation with Muhammad and Paul Williams would go? I suppose Muhammad shouldn’t have been a Muslim. The truth is that Williams shouldn’t be one either.
Proof, if any more were needed, that Paul Williams is not much of an apologist.
Hi Christopher,
I think he’s gone downhill to be honest. He’s always quoted liberals but usually backed it up. He’s not even backing it up these days.
God bless,
Allan
I made a cheap shot and felt bad about it. Nevertheless I think it is justified. Sometimes you just have to tell it like it is.
Dear Mr Ruhl
I am, by the grace of God, a Russian Orthodox Old Rite Christian, but i was born in the Latin faith. Over the past few years I have read many of your articles and enjoyed them very much.
Speaking as one who has contributed to ‘Blogging Theology 2’ belonging to Paul Bilal Williams, several times, I must confess that it is like entering the gladiatorial arena, with Salafists and Evangelical Calvinists firing verbal barbs at one another as though they were arrows.
It does seem that the majority of the more prominent Saracen apologists in the English speaking world follow three basic steps when discussing with members of the Church on the question of the true nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ. These points, in my experience, are as follows:
1. Select certain quotes from the Holy Bible and use them in an Islamic context, such as Mohammed being Prophesied in them.
2. Deny the authority of the Holy Bible when a verse is brought forth that condemns Islamic Christology. This is usually done by saying that the scriptures are not reliable.
3. Vilify St Paul the Apostle, of blessed and holy memory, by saying he corrupted the message of Our Lord and that he was a heretic. This is usually done with a reference to the Ebionites.
4. Make reference to modern day scholars, ususly drawn from Protestant or liberal Catholic backgrounds, such as Bart Ehrman or Geza Vermes, who deny the teachings of the Holy and Infallible Church.
You have had a far wider experience in dealing with Muslims, may i ask your advice as how best to answer these accusations against the faith ?
I have found that the Saracen reliance upon modernist scholars a little puzzling, since the views of many of these Scholars on the nature of Christ is diametrically opposed to the Islamic view. From what I can see there are two main branches of academics who are on the hunt for the nebulous ‘Jesus of History’.
According to the School of Bart Ehrman and Reza Aslan, the historical Jesus was a zealous rabble rousing, war mongering mystic who believed that he would be the King of Israel when the Kingdom of God eventually came. He was eventually crucified much to his surprise and his followers were so mentally traumatised that they believed that he had risen from the dead. This school sees him in the mould of Bar Kokhba and other ancient Jewish zealots.
According to the School of Paula Fredriksen, Hyam Maccoby and the late Geza Vermes, the historical Jesus was an itinerant, ecstatic and rather earthy proto rabbi, who taught a radically simplified version of the Torah that was based upon the principles of love and piety. He was essentially an ancient Jewish version of St Seraphim of Sarov, of blessed and holy memory. They too believed that he was crucified in a state of despair and misunderstanding.
This is contrasted with the Islamic view of Christ as born of a pure Virgin, speaking as a newborn, forming birds from clay and giving them life, giving life to the dead and not being crucified at all. None of the critically minded scholars Muslims quote would give the Islamic view of Jesus any more historical merit that the orthodox view. In other words the islamic claim to have the ‘Jesus of History’ is condemned by the very scholars they quote in opposition to the Church. The Isa of the Quran is as a -historical a figure as the Jesus of the Gospels.
And the fact that our earliest texts outside the new testament teach a decidedly un-Islamic view of Christ such as St Polycarp, of holy and blessed memory, saying that “Whosoever does not confess the Testimony of the Cross is of the devil” may serve to show history that the Disciples of the Messiah held a decidedly different view of their Lord than an Arabian merchant born six centuries later.
I recommend we return to the one Apostolic Faith as professed by St Irenaeus, of holy and blessed memory
“Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.” For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God—both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: “God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: “The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.” Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, “God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;” that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, “I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.” But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.” To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the “adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.”
God love you
Hello!
Thanks for the introduction. Russian Orthodox? I’m actually a student of the Russian language and I sometimes used to go with my tutors to the local ROCOR parish which is walking distance from my house. I knew the priest well but he recently moved across the country.
Now to your question. They like to say that they have the Jesus of history. This is of course absurd for the reasons that you pointed out. What they’re banking on is the fact that most of these people claim that Jesus didn’t claim divinity. That’s what they’re going for and these scholars tend to go in that direction. They also weigh against the Virgin Birth, something treasured by Christians and Muslims but Muslim apologists just conveniently ignore that.
I simply give them a soundbite response to their soundbite statement. I simply say that no historians believe in a baby speaking messiah who received an injeel from God, predicted Muhammad(Ahmad) by name, wasn’t crucified and had disciples who confessed themselves to be Muslims. If that’s the Jesus of history, please cite the historian.
That’s essentially what I say. Thanks for commenting and feel free to ask any more questions.
God bless,
Allan
–2. Deny the authority of the Holy Bible when a verse is brought forth that condemns Islamic Christology. This is usually done by saying that the scriptures are not reliable.–
Hello sir.
As a frequent consumer of apologetics & polemics against Islam in defense of Christianity, allow me to provide some quick collections that clearly show the Quran attesting to the preservation of the Bible during Muhammad’s time, over and over again:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/aboutbible.htm
You will find answers to basically EVERY Islamic accusation at that site.
Another good resource is https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics/videos
Although the multi-hour long videos can be rambling, from them you can glean amazing and in-depth information such as on Muhammad being prophesied in the Bible, or whether Paul was considered trustworthy by early Muslims.
I’ve just read the whole Twitter exchange.
So according to Paul Williams, the Qur’an’s meaning is to be determined by
“top Western scholars” ? Imagine if we Christians claimed that the Bible’s meaning is to be determined by the judgement of today’s “top Muslim scholars”.
Paul Williams has left Islam and reverted, and has now apparently left Islam again, he’s currently calling himself a “freelance monotheist”.
The only belief I have seen him cling to consistently is the reverence for “mainstream (read : liberal) Western scholarly consensus”, whatever that means.
If Paul Williams can read Arabic as he claims, why does he need to go to the British Library to learn what the Qur’an meant to say ? I thought the Qur’an was clear, easy, self-contained guidance ?
Hi Jonathan,
In William’s defense, he’s talking about Western Muslims Scholars like Haleem and others. I actually quoted Haleem in the article. Not only does he claim to speak Arabic, he claims to speak Latin as well. Right after that in a debate with a priest he quoted Aquinas in the Summa. I then asked if he could read Latin and was familiar with modern Thomistic literature. He said yes.
God bless,
Allan
I just read the twitter exchange. Boy, that was funny.
That completely confirms my earlier impresssion of Paul Williams. He’s a peculiar character. You handled him really well by the way – remarkably kind and patient.
After reading that I don’t feel bad any more.
Thanks for your corrections Alan. My bad.
May be of interest…
“The Qur’an is certainly concerned with false scripture when it proclaims, “Woe to those who write revelation with their hands and then say, ‘This is from God’.” (Q 2:79). Yet in this passage the Qur’an does not accuse Jews or Christians of changing the Bible. Instead, it argues against those who treat the words of humans as revelation, while neglecting the words of God (…)
There is no compelling reason to associate Qur’anic tahrif with an alteration of letters. Instead, the phrase (…) the Qur’an intends scriptural falsification that involves reading or explaining scripture out of context, not erasing words and rewriting them.”
Gabriel Said Reynolds, ‘On the Qurʾanic Accusation of Scriptural Falsification (taḥrīf) and Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic’
” It would be a misleading simplification to characterise the Muslim approach to discrepancies between the Bible and Qur’an as all being due to Jewish and Christian alteration (tahrif) of the revealed text. (…) Perhaps more common than the allegation of the purposeful or accidental alteration of the text of the Bible is the claim that Jews and Christians ‘altered’ the Bible by misinterpreting the revelation contained within the text. (…) As in the debates between the Jews of Medina and the Prophet Muhammad reported in later Muslim exegesis, the dispute is not about the content of the Bible but about the refusal of the Jews to acknowledge the application of the content to the Prophet Muhammad. What appears to be at issue in the discrepancy over the mention of the Prophet Muhammad, and the other Arab prophets in the Bible, is not missing content but a question of interpretation.”
Brannon Wheeler, ‘Arab Prophets of the Qur’an and Bible’
“Qur’anic words such as tahrif are popularly accepted today as referring to deliberate distortion of scripture; however, classical scholars have interpreted the Qur’an’s references in a number of different ways.Almost all suggested that distortion occurred mainly through interpretation and not in the text itself. Although the Qur’an refers to tahrif (distortion), it also exhibits the utmost respect for previous scriptures.”
Introduction to Abdullah Saeed’s “The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures”
Thank you, this is interesting.
This is just pure nonesence. Even though Majority of Arabs were illitrate by then, Arabic was their mother-tongue hence they could understand the Quran much better than any learned non-Arab.
Secondly; there are so many Quranic vsrses that clearly disapprove the major tenents of Christian faith. Including the notion of trinity; original sin; death and ressurection of jesus, divinity stc. Hence the fabrication of the bible is very clear in the Quran.