A Christian Approach to Islam
(Part
2)
Garry
K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.
Unlike the popular notion, Islam is not the exclusive religion
of Arab countries in the Middle East, but has found prolific
expression around the globe. It is the fastest-growing religion
in the world, claiming up to one billion adherents worldwide.
To put that in perspective, this figure indicates that one
out of every five people is a Muslim. In the United States,
there are now up to five million Muslims, and over 1,100
mosques or Islamic centers (see Rood, 1994; Ahmad, 1995).
Muslims, therefore, no longer are the vague features of geographically
detached people, but could be among those whom we encounter
in our daily routines. In light of these considerations,
properly understanding, and responding to, Islam become increasingly
apparent and personal.
The Persian Gulf War, and other such conflicts involving
the U.S. and Islamic nations, have created within Westerners
largely negative images of Muslims. Often they are associated
with the stubbled faces and cold stares of fanatical terrorists
who, to advance their political agenda, bomb public facilities,
snuffing out hundreds of innocent lives. While some militant
Islamic sects have conducted terrorist activity in the U.S.
and other Western nations, they are not necessarily representative
of all Muslims (see Al-Ashmawy, 1996; Sial, 1995). Simply
exposing the radical views held by violent sects would not
be a responsible critique of Islam. As Islamic writer Mubashar
Ahmad correctly has objected, such an approach “would be
as if someone tries to understand Christianity by reading
the news of what is happening politically and religiously
in Northern Ireland or of apartheid in South Africa” (1995).
PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATIONS
In light of Ahmad’s legitimate caveat, at least two observations
need to guide an analysis of, and response to, Islam. First,
as indicated in part one of this series, Islam is not a monolithic
system, but contains several identifiable sects and movements
(Brantley, 1996; see Rood, 1994). It is “a religious movement
that has experienced constant change over the centuries and
has acquired a high degree of inner diversity, a faith shared
by concrete men and women with a broad spectrum of attitudes
and feelings” (Kung, 1986, p. 22). Not all Muslims engage
in, or support, the terrorist activity of fundamentalist
Islamic sects. In fact, nonextremist Muslims decry the intolerant
Islam preached by militant fanatics whose messages, they
contend, are “a cover for advancing their political agenda
and their lust for power, and ideology more akin to fascism
and Marxism than to the Islamic faith” (Al-Ashmawy, 1996,
p. 157). Thus, a Christian response to Islam must guard against
stereotyping Muslims as blood-thirsty rogues with no regard
for human life.
Second, we need to be sensitive to, and try to appreciate,
the anti-west/anti-U.S. sentiment among many Middle Eastern
Muslims. Historically, Muslims have equated, and continue
to equate, the West with Christianity. From this perspective, “Christian” and “Muslim” nations
have had a long history of conflict, leaving both with animosity
toward one another. While Islamic countries have committed
their share of atrocities against Christian nations, the
former do have some legitimate grievances against the latter.
The Crusades (c. 1050-1291), for example, are etched indelibly
into Muslim minds. In the Colonial period (c. 1450-1970),
Western nations subjugated about ninety percent of the Muslim
world, which instilled in many Muslims a deep desire to avenge
such shame and humiliation. Perhaps the greatest blow to
the Islamic ego was when, after thirteen hundred years of
occupation, they lost possession of Jerusalem to the Jews
in 1967. Muslims blame this turn of events on the “Christian” West
for creating the state of Israel in 1948 (see McCurry, 1994).
Though we might reasonably object that they have skewed history
to a certain extent (see van Ess, 1986, pp. 37-38), Muslims
nonetheless view the West, and particularly the U.S., through
lenses colored by this history of Muslim casualties. If we
are to have any success in reaching Muslims with the gospel
of Jesus Christ, we must approach them with sensitivities
toward their, and our, past.
CHRISTIANITY
AND ISLAM: POINTS OF TENSION
While we recognize the vast diversity of thought and attitudes
within Islam, our response to this world religion must be
limited to its core beliefs. Before offering such a critique,
it will be both helpful and crucial to clarify the points
of tension between Christianity and Islam. While on a superficial
level it appears that Christianity and Islam share common
theological ground in some particulars (e.g., monotheism),
a closer scrutiny of the two religions exposes several fundamental
differences that can be reconciled only by a costly compromise
by either the Christian, the Muslim, or both.
Monotheism of Islam
At first glance, it appears that the rigid monotheism of
Islam largely is compatible with Christian thought. The idea
expressed in the Qur’an that God is “the one, the most unique,” and
the “immanently indispensable” to Whom “no one is comparable” (sura 112:1-2,4),
generally agrees with biblical concepts of God (cf. Deuteronomy
6:4; Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:18; 44:6). Yet, the monotheism
of Islam is so rigid and inflexible that it repudiates two
crucial, and inextricably linked, doctrines of historic Christianity.
1. The Trinity. Though questioned by some groups
within the pale of Christianity, the concept of the trinity
has strong biblical support (see Bromling, 1991). This doctrine
does not suggest, as is alleged by non-Trinitarians, a tri-theistic
construct of God. It simply affirms that there are three
distinct persons (i.e., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit),
yet all are one in essence. In other words, while
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sustain distinct relationships
to one another, they share the same divine nature (see Geisler
and Saleeb, 1993, p. 266). In this regard, Christianity and
Islam are firmly opposed to one another. Unlike the monotheism
of Christianity that allows for a plurality within the divine
essence, Islam condemns such a pluralistic concept of God
(see Kaleem, 1994). The Qur’an cautions the “people of the
book” (i.e., Christians) against calling God “Trinity” for “God
is only one God” (sura 4:171).
2. The Deity of Jesus. Consistent with Islam’s repudiation
of the Trinitarian idea of God, the Qur’an, though it exalts
Jesus in many particulars, explicitly denies the deity of
Jesus. While the Qur’an acknowledges that Jesus was a miraculous “sign” and
divine “blessing” (19:21), Islamic Christology is totally
devoid of divine content (see Kuitse, 1992, 20:357). Since
God’s transcendent glory prohibits His begetting a son, the
Qur’an presents Jesus only as the “son of Mary,” not the
Son of God (4:171). Rather than possessing the divine nature
as in biblical Christology (Philippians 2:8-12; Colossians
1:18), the Qur’anic Jesus “was only a creature” (43:59) brought
into existence by God’s creative word (3:42-52). Islam’s
view of Jesus demonstrates the vast difference between it
and Christianity. And, far from being a peripheral issue,
the deity of Jesus is an essential tenet of Christianity.
Thus, while Christianity and Islam share a common monotheistic
belief, there is no resolving their Christological differences
as they stand.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ
Another cardinal doctrine of Christianity—the atonement—is
discarded by the Qur’an. That Jesus died for our sins,
was buried, and rose again from the grave according to the
Scriptures is the thrust of the gospel message (1 Corinthians
15:1-4). Contrary to the conclusion of some modern theologians,
Paul argued that Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection were
actual events of history. Following Paul’s line of reasoning
to its logical conclusion, if Christ did not actually rise
from the dead there is no gospel, and the entire Christian
system is annulled (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). A denial of
these core events is tantamount to rejecting the veracity
of Christianity.
Yet, Islam does deny these central Christian events, charging
that Jesus actually did not die on the cross (see Ijaz, n.d.).
In a context in which the Jews are excoriated for repeatedly
breaking God’s covenant, the Qur’an reads:
And for saying [in boast]: “We killed the Christ, Jesus,
son of Mary, who was an apostle of God;” but they neither
killed nor crucified him, though it so appeared to them.
Those who disagree in the matter are only lost in doubt.
They have no knowledge about it other than conjecture, for
surely they did not kill him, but God raised him up (in position)
and closer to Himself; and God is all-mighty and all wise
(sura 4:157-158).
This one reading has generated considerable debate among
Islamic commentators. The phrase, “so it appeared to them,” particularly
has been problematic. Generally, orthodox Muslims have interpreted
this to mean that in some mysterious manner, God made another
person so resemble Jesus that he was crucified by mistake.
By this means God intervened and frustrated the Jews’ evil
purpose, and subsequently transported Jesus into heaven (see
Geisler and Saleeb, 1992, pp. 64-65). According to Norman
Anderson, Muhammad’s aversion to Jesus’ death as reflected
in the Qur’an could have been motivated by several factors.
Perhaps it was due, Anderson suggests, to the influence of
Gnostic views, to his disdain for the “superstitious veneration” of
the symbol of the cross in seventh-century Asia, or to his
disbelief that God would allow one of His prophets to die
in such a disgraceful manner (1975, p. 101). Of these possibilities,
the latter is the most likely candidate.
Regardless of the rationale behind Islam’s denial of Jesus’ crucifixion,
one fact remains: Islam rejects the idea of Jesus’ crucifixion
and, by implication, His vicarious suffering for sinful humanity.
As already indicated, such a denial strikes at the very heart
of the Christian system. Once again, any points of contact
between Islam and Christianity are eclipsed by this fundamental
difference.
Means of Salvation
As a corollary to its denial of Jesus’ death, Islam differs
significantly with Christianity regarding the means of humankind’s
salvation. In the Christian system, all responsible human
beings without Christ are powerless slaves to a ruthless
taskmaster—sin (Romans 5:6-11; 6:15-18; Ephesians 2:14-18).
Since there is no means of liberating ourselves from the
bondage of sin, human beings desperately are in need of a
savior. In response to this critical condition, God, motivated
by His love, entered into human history as a man, and offered
His sinless life for humanity. The New Testament writers
employed several images (financial, military, sacrificial,
and legal) to convey in a concrete way the soteriological
purpose of Christ’s death. Through the cross, sinners are
purchased (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23), victorious (Colossians
1:12; 2:15; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28), atoned for (Romans 3:25;
1 Corinthians 5:7), and acquitted and reconciled (2 Corinthians
5:16-19; Colossians 1:19-20; see Guthrie, 1994, pp. 251-256).
While scholars continue to debate the theological details
of these images, it is clear from the New Testament that
God took the initiative in the salvation of humanity. It
further emphasizes that salvation is not by human works of
merit, but by God’s grace through an expressive faith in
the redemptive act of Christ on the cross (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Islam, however, has no place for a suffering savior in its
redemptive system. It does not view human beings as enslaved
by sin without the ability of self-emancipation. Though it
emphasizes the role of God’s mercy and forgiveness in salvation,
Islam teaches that God’s pleasure, and thus one’s place in
Heaven, are earned (cf. suras 2:207; 39:69). On the
Day of Judgment, according to Islam, those who have fulfilled
their religious duties, and compensated for their altruistic
deficiencies by performing additional good deeds, will attain
salvation. Those whose good deeds are insufficient, however, “shall
forfeit their souls and abide in Hell forever” (sura 23:102-103).
In the final analysis, according to Islam, humankind’s spiritual
need is not for a divine savior, but simply for divine guidance.
A
BRIEF EVALUATION OF ISLAM
The points of tension between Islam and Christianity demonstrate
the theological incompatibility of these two world views.
To embrace Islam is to deny the essentials of the Christian
faith; likewise, to espouse Christianity is to compromise
seriously the core beliefs of Islam. Having laid out the
basic practices and duties of Islam, and having highlighted
the distinctions between Islam and Christianity, a Christian
evaluation of Islam now is in order. Due to space restrictions,
we will devote our attention to two crucial points of Islam:
the nature of God, and the Qur’an.
The Nature of God
As already indicated, the stringent monotheism of Islam
categorizes the Trinitarian concept of deity espoused by
Christians as tri-theism. This is due to a misunderstanding
of the Father/Son relationship between God and Jesus as mentioned
in the Bible (see John 10:29-33). For Jesus to sustain such
a filial kinship to God, “often in the Muslim mind implies
some kind of sexual generation” (Geisler and Saleeb, 1993,
pp. 134-135). Of course, the term “Father” or “Son” does
not necessitate physical procreation any more than Saddam
Hussein’s description of the Gulf War as the “Mother of all
Battles” demands that the conflict had a physical womb. The
description of Jesus as the “only begotten Son” of God (John
3:16) refers, not to a physical act of procreation, but to
His unique relationship to God the Father.
The idea expressed in the Qur’an that God’s glory prohibits
Him from begetting a son (in the carnal sense; sura 4:171)
provides further insight into the theology of Islam. God
is so transcendent and unified to Himself that He is dissociated
totally from creation and, thus, acts impersonally (McDowell,
1983, p. 393). To many Muslims, this implies that God is
so detached from our human existence that He has no (knowable)
essence; He is absolute Will. A God with no essence means
a God with no essential characteristics. From this perspective,
though the Qur’an extols God as “the Compassionate, the Merciful,” such
characteristics are not rooted in His essence but are the
results of His capricious will. As the Qur’an indicates,
God is merciful simply because “He has decreed mercy
for Himself ” (sura 6:12). In short, in Islamic theology
what God does determines who God is. Since
God’s actions are contingent on His arbitrary will, then
who God is ultimately is an act of His volition.
Such a concept of God, however, involves a serious moral
difficulty. It implies the possibility that, had God willed
it, He might as easily have been “The Merciless” rather than “The
Merciful.” For, as Geisler and Saleeb have observed, “if
God is Will, without any real essence, then he does not do
things because they are right; rather, they are right because
he does them” (1993, pp. 136-137). In the final analysis,
the God of Islam has no nature by which He is inherently
prohibited from, or motivated toward, certain actions. The
God of Christianity, however, has such a nature that self-limits
His actions (e.g., He cannot lie, Titus 1:2). In addition,
rather than being the products of His volition, the benevolent
attributes of the Christian God (e.g., goodness, mercy, love,
grace) are part of His essence.
These divergent concepts of God find practical expression
in profoundly different ways. Consistent with Islamic theology,
the concern of orthodox Muslims is not to know God in an
intimate fashion, but simply to obey Him. The God of Islam
does not reveal Himself; rather, He reveals only His will,
to which Muslims are to submit in an external fashion. On
the contrary, the God of Christianity has revealed not only
His propositional truth in the Bible, but also His essence
in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, Christians seek not
only to do God’s will, but to be in a covenant relationship
with Him. Due to the Islamic concept of God, together with
its works-oriented means of salvation, Muslims cannot have
the sense of security that Christians enjoy through God’s
grace as taught in the Bible.
The Qur’an
To Muslims, the Qur’an is not merely the counterpart of
the Christian Bible, but is the Islamic equivalent of Christ.
According to Muslim scholar, Yusuf K. Ibish, “If you want
to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare
it with Christ Himself ” (as quoted in Geisler and Saleeb,
1993, p. 179). Consistent with Ibish’s observation, Muslims
assign to the Qur’an the same attributes that Christians
apply to Christ. For example, just as Jesus is the human
manifestation of the eternal God in biblical Christology
(John 1:1-3,14; Hebrews 1:1-3), the Qur’an is the linguistic
representation of God’s eternal Word. In short, while in
Christianity the divine Word became a human being, in Islam
the eternal Word became a book. Muslims further argue that
the Qur’an not only is the inspired, inerrant, eternal, and
final revelation of God that supersedes all others, but is
also the ultimate divine miracle. In fact, as stated in part
one of this series, it was the only miracle Muhammad offered
when asked to display his prophetic credentials. Muslims
employ several arguments to support the claim of the Qur’an’s
miraculous status. Consider two of the most popular arguments,
and a brief response.
1. Unique literary style. To many Muslims the strongest
evidence supporting the miraculous nature of the Qur’an is
its impressive literary style. The Arabic in which the Qur’an
was written has rhyming, rhythmic qualities that delight
the Arab’s ears (Shorrosh, 1988, p. 25). Muslims further
hold that the Qur’an’s rhetoric, clarity of expression, and
concepts are unparalleled in the world of literature. To
Muslim apologists, these literary qualities indicate the
divine origin of the Qur’an.
To question the literary quality of the Qur’an, as many
attempt to do, is an inadequate response to this argument
because the Muslim simply would point out that only those
who understand the nuances of the Arabic language can appreciate
this aspect of the Qur’an. Further, determining the quality
of a production introduces the dimension of subjectivity.
Hence, the question is: Does eloquence indicate divine inspiration?
At best, the eloquence of the Qur’an only suggests that Muhammad
was a gifted orator. If eloquence is strong evidence for
divine inspiration, the works of Homer and Shakespeare are
candidates for this exalted status as well. In short, the
argument from eloquence is not a sufficient proof of inspiration.
2. Muhammad’s illiteracy. A controversial verse in
the Qur’an forms the basis for the belief in Muhammad’s illiteracy.
In that passage, Allah promises to bestow mercy on those
who, among other duties, “follow the Apostle—the Unlettered
Prophet...” (sura 7:157). The phrase “the Unlettered
Prophet,” often is interpreted to indicate Muhammad’s illiteracy.
If so, Muslims contend, this is further confirmation of the
Qur’an’s divine origin, since it would have been highly improbable,
if not impossible, for a formally-uneducated prophet to produce
such a quality work.
There are at least two points to make in response to this
claim. First, it is questionable whether Muhammad actually
was illiterate. Some Arabic scholars contend that the words al
umni “the unlettered,” actually mean “the heathen,” or “the
gentile,” which is reflected in more recent translations
(see Ali, 1993, p. 148). Second, if Muhammad actually were
illiterate, that fact alone would not necessitate that the
Qur’an was dictated to him by God. One’s level of formal
training does not necessarily enhance one’s intelligence
or creative abilities. Even if he could neither read nor
write, Muhammad could have dictated his messages to a scribe
who subsequently wrote them down. In the final analysis,
it is plausible that someone with no formal training could
have produced the Qur’an. Hence, the question of Muhammad’s
illiteracy is a peripheral issue when it comes to establishing
the divine origin of the Qur’an.
Islamic apologists offer other arguments to support the
Qur’an’s claim of divine authorship. Among them are the alleged
perfect preservation of the Qur’anic text, fulfilled prophecies,
its unity, and scientific accuracy. These evidences, however,
similarly prove to be unconvincing (see Geisler and Saleeb,
1993, pp. 204; Lawson, 1991).
CONCLUSION
Of course, Muslims, as do other non-believers, challenge
the evidences for biblical inspiration. Since, generally
speaking, Islamic countries protect the Qur’an from criticism,
it has not been subjected to the same intensity of critical
analysis as has the Bible. Despite the centuries-long attacks
against biblical credibility, the Bible has fared quite well.
And, though it is not within the purview of this brief article
to enumerate each of them, there are impressive evidences
for the integrity of the Christian system (see Geisler, 1976;
Wharton, 1977)
While we can, and should, discuss the differences between
Islam and Christianity, and debate with Muslims regarding
the inspiration of the Qur’an, encountering Muslims at this
level most likely will produce little evangelistic progress.
First we must extend the love of Christ to Muslims in concrete
ways. Once they have seen tangible evidence of the risen
Lord within our lives, we will be in a better position to
discuss these more technical, yet vital, issues.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, Mubashar (1995), The Changing Perception of Islam
in American Pluralistic Society [Online], URL http://www.utexas.edu/students/amso/changing_perception.html.
[NOTE: This link no longer is active.]
Al-Ashmawy, Sai’d (1996), “Islam’s Agenda,” Readers Digest,
pp. 156-160, January.
Ali, Ahmed (1993), Al-Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press).
Anderson, Norman (1975), “Islam,” The World’s Religions,
ed. Norman Anderson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brantley, Garry K. (1996), “A Christian Approach to Islam—Part
I,” Reason and Revelation, 16:1-7, January.
Bromling, Brad (1991), “Trinity—From Nice or Heaven?,” Reasoning
from Revelation, 3:1, January.
Geisler, Norman L. (1976), Christian Apologetics (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker).
Geisler, Norman L. and Abdul Saleeb (1993), Answering
Islam (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Guthrie, Shirley C. (1994), Christian Doctrine (Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox).
Ijaz, Tahir (n.d.), Prophet Jesus Had Died: The Quran [Online],
URL http://www.utexas.edu/students/amso/1_Quran.html. [NOTE:
This link no longer is active.]
Kaleem, Al Haj Ata Ullah (1994), The Islamic Concept
of God [Online], URL http://www.utexas.edu/students/
amso/ror/islamic_god.html#misc. [NOTE: This link no longer
is active.]
Kuitse, Roelf S. (1992), “Christology in the Qur’an,” Missiology:
An International Review, 20:355-369.
Kung, Hans (1986), “Muhammad and the Qur’an: Prophecy and
Revelation: A Christian Response,” Christianity and World
Religions, ed. Hans Kung (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Lawson, Todd B. (1991), “Note for the Study of a Shi’i Qur’an,” Journal
of Semitic Studies, 36:279-295.
McCurry, Don (1994), Witnessing to Muslims [Online],
URL http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0123a.txt.
[NOTE: This link no longer is active.]
McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart (1983), Handbook on Today’s
Religions (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers).
Rood, Rick (1994), What Is Islam? [Online]. (Richardson,
TX: Probe Ministries), URL http://www.gocin.com/probe/islam.htm.
[NOTE: This link no longer is active.]
Shorrosh, Anis A. (1988), Islam Revealed: A Christian
Arab’s View of Islam (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
Sial, Sultan (1995), Terrorized Twice [Online], URL
http://www.utexas.edu/students/amso/oklahoma.html#Quran.
[NOTE: This link no longer is active.]
van Ess, Josef (1986), “Sunnis and Shi’ites: The State,
Law, and Religion: Islamic Perspectives,” Christianity
and World Religions, ed. Hans Kung (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday).
Wharton, Edward C. (1977), Christianity: A Clear Case
of History (West Monroe, LA: Howard).
Copyright © 1996
Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/225
This
document may be copied, on the condition that it will not
be republished in print unless otherwise stated below,
and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long
as the following stipulations are observed: (1)
Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher;
(2) the specific Apologetics Press Web
site URL must be noted; (3) any references,
footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must
be included with any written reproduction of the article;
(4) textual alterations of any kind are
strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations
(e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the
intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such
cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from
the person or organization that maintains those intellectual
rights; (6) serialization of written material
(e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted,
as long as the whole of the material is made available,
without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7)
articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale
or included in items offered for sale; and (8)
articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting
on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from
their original written content and that credit is given
to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which
the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be
copied without source statements (title, author, journal
title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights,
as listed below.
For
catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics
Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
|
