The Earliest Biography of Muhammad
In this day and age, books are readily available to us. We can go online and see what we need to read on a certain subject then go to Amazon, purchase the book, and it’ll be delivered to our front door. Pretty good deal, isn’t it?
So what are the top five books to read on Islam? I’m actually not going to give you a list but I’m going to talk about lists that others have made. If you type “Top 5 books on Islam” into Google and go to any Christian website you’ll just get a whole bunch of anti-Islam books. Here’s an example. This is the link to an Evangelical website:
Guess what the five books are?
- The Gospel for Muslims by Thabiti Anyabwile
- What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an by James R. White
- Breaking the Islam Code by JD Greear
- Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi
- Jesus, Jihad and Peace by Michael Youssef
This is just one example of the lists that one can find. Other lists include similar books or those by Robert Spencer.
Young Muslims who are just starting to get into apologetics against Christianity won’t read the Bible or study Christianity from believing sources. They’ll head off to the local bookstore and pick up the latest Bart Ehrman book and anything that they learn from the Bible will come through that prism. I criticize Muslims for this but Christians also do the same thing as you can see above.
If a Muslim wants to study Christianity, I would point him to the Bible, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Augustine’s book on the Trinity and a couple other books written by Saints or Doctors of the Church. Now, 90% of Muslims will just overlook this and hop on the Bart Ehrman train but I believe that some of them have open minds and will look into these books.
For Christians studying Islam, I would recommend the Quran, the Hadith collections, the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, The Reliance of the Traveler or other books written in the classical period of Islam. I would never start with the above list or any similar list. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend most modern books on Islam. If you want to know what Islam really teaches, learn from classical figures who actually believed in the faith, not modern Western Muslims or Christian anti-Muslim writers.
Yeah, I know, it’s not as fun but it shows that you treat Islam seriously. Also, Muslims will respect you if you know their traditional sources well. They’ll take you more seriously than if you just read Nabeel Qureshi.
I once received an objection to this from someone I know. He said that it’s good to read these Nabeel Qureshi type books on Islam because they clearly demonstrate the difference between the two faiths. My answer to this is that if you want to know the differences and you can’t figure them out yourself, you don’t know your own faith well and you should be reading books on Christianity instead. Learn about your own faith before you attack the faith of others.
The downside of this is that it takes work, and I won’t deny that. It’s not easy getting into apologetics. I’ve been studying Islam since 2003 and I still haven’t finished the Hadith collections. There isn’t an easy solution to this but anything worth doing in life will require effort. Again, you can learn about Islam through Qureshi, White, and Spencer but don’t complain when the young Muslim internet apologist recommends every Bart Ehrman book under the sun.
I wonder which books Yusha Evans will recommend to his audience….
Hi Allan,
I am big time bibliophile, and have been collecting books for over 50 years now (16,000 plus hard copies; 10,000 plus digital). My studies into Islam started in the mid-90s, and about 6% of my collection is related to Islamic studies.
Two days ago, I too provided a list of books/theses/dissertations concerning Islam LINK.
Given your interest in older works pertaining to Islam, I think you will find Sara Leila Husseini ‘s thesis of particular interest: Early Christian Explanations of The Trinity in Arabic in the Context of Muslim Theology.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
I’ll definitely look into that. I haven’t actually counted all of the books that I own. I’m guessing that it would be quite a bit.
God Bless
1. To the list for Christians I would suggest adding Qureshi’s “No God But One-Allah or Jesus”- the sequel to “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus”, contains important information and insights on the comparison of the two faiths. In my opinion Qureshi’s books are the best part of his apologetic legacy. Very helpful is also Spencer’s “Did Muhammad Exist?”, it has a few flaws but contains a good summary of the reasons why Islamic historiography and tradition are not to be fully trusted.
2. “They’ll head off to the local bookstore and pick up the latest Bart Ehrman book and anything that they learn from the Bible will come through that prism.” – you should be glad they do so, because that make their apologetics predictable and vulnerable. Almost all of Ehrman’s arguments have already been refuted, so when a Muslim appeals to his writings, I simply direct them to books and articles that deal with Ehrman’s writings OR I explain why his arguments are weak or of no use to Muslims. For example, when a Muslim says “Most of books in the New Testament are not written by the people, considered to be their authors, I’ve read in “Forged”. Take this, Christian!”, I reply “Ehrman also says in “Jesus, Interrupted” that historians can establish only what probably happened back in ancient times, not what certainly happened, therefore miracles are dismissed by definition as probable events, since miracles are the least probable events*. This means that according to Ehrman’s logic Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles (which Ehrman rejects) is more probable than the claim that the Quran was revealed by Allah, the latter notion being miraculous, unlike the former. The only logical conclusion is that the probability of the Quran being anonymous is much higher, compared to the probability of the Pastorals being penned by St. Paul. This is valid for the authorship of all other NT books. You cannot have your Meccan cake and eat it. Condolences!”.The Muslim reaction thus far is simply pretending that they didn’t bring Ehrman in the discussion.
3. “If you want to know what Islam really teaches, learn from classical figures who actually believed in the faith…”- agreed, sometimes the most conservative and venerated classical scholars of Islam like Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi espouse views, considered unacceptable by modern Muslims. Using their works against modern Islamic apologists and dawamongers could be quite the fun.
*This way of reasoning has been challenged by John Earman in his book “Hume’s Abject Failure” and Mike Licona in his article “Historians and Miracle Claims”.
Hi Orangehunter,
I agree with you. I never once said that Ehrman’s arguments are tough to deal with. I remember all of those years ago when James White debated Ehteshaam Gulam. All Gulam did was quote Ehrman’s popular books. He only knew the conclusions and not the foundation so he was humiliated in the Q&A. Following his YouTube channel, it is obvious that he is still bitter about it today.
I would prefer Muslims not to start with Ehrman though. It would be better if they just went straight to the sources to learn about our faith. Of course they have the burden knowing that their scripture references ours so they have to find Islam in it.
Regarding Qureshi and other ex-Muslims who write books like that, I don’t really read a lot of them. I would rather make my own arguments. I believe that I was the first one to show that Song of Solomon 5:16 doesn’t spell Muhammad’s name. Since I use my own arguments, they don’t know what to expect. I suppose its similar to what you said about the Muslims reading Ehrman. I don’t read the main stuff though and if I did I would only use the arguments presented after careful scrutiny.
God Bless,
Allan
Gulam’s performance in the debate was really cringeworthy, he pretty much relied on opinions instead of arguments and failed to address almost anything of what White brought forth. I also noticed his aversion towards White, even now, eight years later. What Gulam needs to understand is that it was his own fault for getting
embarrassed in the debate.
May God help us all
I do not accept Pauline authorship for the six contested Epistles. I don’t know exactly to make of it, except that it is a strike against the Church who incorporated books of dubious authority. It does not really affect Christian aqueeda (creed) that much, although it does harm predestination since I would like to use Ephesians 1:4-5.
Ehrman said in Forgery and Counterforgery that the real Paul and author the Epistle of James had no major conflicting doctrines among them. They may have used the term “faith” differently, but their understanding of justification is certainly compatible. In Ephesians 2:15, the author says that the law had been abolished, and if you read the real attentively, he never directly said such things, although at some points it might have been suggested, and the real Paul respected the law enough, but he certainly believed that one cannot be justified by it.
(That verse in Ephesians is one evidence based on its content that Paul did not write it)
—
So what? I would not make argument about the Quran’s authorship. I do not have requisite skills in Arabic to make a constructive argument to provide evidence for supernatural provenance. One could assess Pauline authorship of the contested Epistles independent of the actual origin of the words of Quran.
I am much less reliant on liberal scholarship to make my points since I am not that interested in contesting the history, but I have a preference to work with the text of Bible to argue various doctrinal and philosophical points. I feel that the position I want to argue for is that the New Testament does not teach justification as sola fide in the sense that faith is just mere assent or a belief (as even the fallen angels have this, as what James 2 say) but that faith also includes trust in God and at least some inward sentiment of repentance. I don’t recall the real Paul saying much about repentance as “metanoia” is used only a few times, but faith certainly involves some transformation to have more “spiritual” predilections. David, as-salaam, for instance, demonstrated repentance for killing Uriah and committing adultery with Bathsheba.
Regardless, I would agree with the Reformed position that discounts the sacramental aspect of the Christian religion.
I feel that I have to avail myself liberal scholarship sometimes. I have to be able to work both sides of the plate: using liberal scholarship and Reformed hermeneutics. Reformed theology shares many similarities with Islam, and I feel it is more advantageous to highlight the similarities (apart from some key issues such as the necessity of the cross, original sin, and the Trinity).
I do not take the warrant of “a few barbarous Arabians” but of Allah, SWT, since He has written the Quran. (Actually, I have to take the warrant of “a few barbarous Arabians” who said that He has written the Quran.)
“Barbarous Arabians” is from “Of Miracles”. I think Muslims would (or should) ironically actually agree with that label, since they consider
Hi Latias,
Thank you for commenting. Since it sounds like you’re responding to Orangehunter, I’ll leave the bulk up to him but I want to make a few comments.
“I do not accept Pauline authorship for the six contested Epistles. I don’t know exactly to make of it, except that it is a strike against the Church who incorporated books of dubious authority.”
I’m really not convinced of the arguments against Pauline authorship of the six epistles. I believe that the Paraclete led the Church into all truth and that includes having these six epistles in the canon. I want to start at Youtube Channel sometime this year. I’m thinking of doing a long video refuting these arguments that Ehrman gives in Forgery and Counterforgery on the authorship of these six epistles.
I find it interesting that you seem to have taken a liking to Reformed theology. Maybe if you hadn’t converted to Islam, you would have embraced Calvinism. Perhaps you still might, I don’t know.
“Regardless, I would agree with the Reformed position that discounts the sacramental aspect of the Christian religion.”
Interesting that you point this out. Some Catholics consider Islam to be the first Protestantism. They usually point how Islam removed the sacraments and Protestantism did the same. A friend of mine who does apologetics told me that there was a dialogue between Theodore Abu Qurrah and a Muslim theologian on the Eucharist in the early days of Islam. I haven’t read up on that yet so I don’t want to comment further.
Anyways, I’ll leave it here as this seemed like a response to Orangehunter and not me.
Have a great weekend Latias,
God Bless,
Allan
Ephesians 2:15 does not mean “Christ abolished the law” – rather, if you study it carefully, it says that He “abolished the enmity of the law”; and the context of Ephesians 2:11-22 is about the things in the law that divide Jews and Gentiles from each other (for example, the food laws). the word “abolish” is better translated “nullifed” or “set aside” – those aspects of the law that are cultural and prevent Jews and Gentiles from fellowship with each other in the church is what the text is referring to.
Ephesians 2:11-22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
It amazing to me how you (and others like Paul Bilal Williams) ignore the context of the whole paragraph.
Thanks for commenting, Latias. And here we go:
1. “I do not accept Pauline authorship for the six contested Epistles”- and I do not accept “Allahine” authorship of the Quran. I guess it’s a matter of one’s religion *sigh*.
2. I’m really tired of this “Paul vs. James” obsession, do I need to mention the countless commentaries of Christian authors that deal with the alleged discrepanies? Since you are a “fan” of Protestantism, I recommend the book “Getting Jesus Right” by Craig Evans and James Beverley. Evans provides an extensive discussion on the alleged dichotomy between St. James and St. Paul. If you are interested in the Eastern Orthodox position, I recommend you these:
https://www.amazon.com/Explanation-Epistle-Saint-Paul-Ephesians/dp/1889814148/ref=pd_sim_14_6?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1889814148&pd_rd_r=GHMVB229G16BD6719GTC&pd_rd_w=p6KmJ&pd_rd_wg=0Z9d0&psc=1&refRID=GHMVB229G16BD6719GTC
https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0718003594&pd_rd_r=5AT335S2X9K2SNRFGZC9&pd_rd_w=TZIxs&pd_rd_wg=UJnE9&psc=1&refRID=5AT335S2X9K2SNRFGZC9
3. “So what? I would not make argument about the Quran’s authorship. I do not have requisite skills in Arabic to make a constructive argument to provide evidence for supernatural provenance. One could assess Pauline authorship of the contested Epistles independent of the actual origin of the words of Quran.”- I’m afraid you misunderstood Ehrman’s argument. It goes like this: “When scholars are dealing with history, they must always dismiss any appeal to supernatural causes, because the scholars can establish only what PROBABLY happened in ancient times, and miracles are the least probable causes for anything that happened back then”. Skills in Arabic will certainly not help you to make a “constructive argument” about the Quran’s authorship. And I’ve already referenced writings that deal with Ehrman’s arguments, for example:
https://www.amazon.com/Trusting-Testament-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1607917335
https://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god
4. “Regardless, I would agree with the Reformed position that discounts the sacramental aspect of the Christian religion.”- regardless, the Reformed position is based on discounting the Christian tradition as preserved by the Chuch, which is problem of Protestantism.
May God help us all.
Hi OrangeHunter,
Back in July 2015, I did brief review of Nabeel Qureshi’s, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (LINK).
Two days ago, I ordered his, No God But One, and it arrived via UPS about 30 minutes ago. Plan to read it tomorrow, the Lord willing.
Have you read Nabeel’s Master Thesis? If not, I have provided the link below:
Spoken Scripture: Insights Gained by Reading Mark and the Qur’an in Tandem Through an Oral Lens
Grace and peace,
David
Thank you for the link, David, I’ll check it any time soon.
Grace and peace to you too