So called Islamic Dilemma debunked!

Premise One: The Qur'an does not confirm the Bible.  

 

Premise Two: If it does, then why aren't the core Christian creedal beliefs such as the death, resurrection, sonship, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the Trinity affirmed in the Qur'an?

 

Premise Three:  Why don’t we find any narratives from the four Gospels in the Qur'an that demonstrate the biography of Jesus is the same?

 

Premise Four:  Instead, the Qur'an presents a significantly different account of Jesus’ life and mission, emphasizing his prophethood while denying his divinity and crucifixion.

 

Premise Five:  Furthermore, the Qur'an frequently criticizes previous scriptures for being altered or misinterpreted, which suggests it does not treat the Bible as a fully preserved or authoritative source.

 

Premise Six: If the Qur'an were truly confirming the Bible, there would be little need for a separate revelation that redefines key theological concepts and corrects supposed distortions.

 

Premise Seven: The historical development of Christianity and Islam reveals distinct and often opposing theological frameworks, indicating that the Qur'an functions more as a corrective or alternative narrative than as a confirmation of the Bible.

 

Premise Eight:  The Qur'an refers to earlier scriptures (like the Torah and the Gospel) in general terms, without citing specific biblical texts or gospel passages, which further suggests it is engaging with an abstracted or reinterpreted version of those texts not affirming the Bible as it exists today.

 

Premise Nine: The Qur'an describes itself as a *muhaimin* (guardian or overseer) over previous scriptures (Qur'an 5:48), implying a position of authority and correction rather than confirmation or alignment with them.

 

Premise Ten: The Qur'an distinguishes between Jesus’ true followers and later Christians, implying that the beliefs of historical Christianity diverged from the original message of Jesus further showing that the Qur'an does not affirm the Bible in its developed theological form.

 

Premise Eleven: The Qur'an never instructs Christians to return to their existing scriptures for theological guidance but rather calls them to accept the Qur'an as the final and uncorrupted revelation from God.

 

Premise Twelve: The consistent Qur'anic redefinition of biblical figures, events, and doctrines such as Abraham being a monotheist independent of Judaism or Christianity, or Jesus not being crucified demonstrates that the Qur'an asserts a distinct theological authority rather than validating previous scripture.

 

Premise Thirteen: The linguistic and stylistic differences between the Qur'an and the Bible reflect fundamentally different purposes and messages, undermining the idea that the Qur'an is merely confirming the Bible.

 

Premise Fourteen: Historical evidence shows that many early Islamic teachings emerged in a context distinct from, and often in opposition to, established Christian doctrine, reinforcing the Qur'an's role as a separate revelation.

 

Premise Fifteen: The Qur'an’s emphasis on the oneness of God (tawhid) and rejection of any partners or divine offspring directly contradicts central Christian doctrines found in the Bible, further demonstrating that it does not confirm the Christian scriptures.       

 

Christian Dilemma!

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. [John 5:46]

This was a bold statement by Jesus directed at the Pharisees, whom he acknowledged as sitting in the seat of Moses. This raises an important question where, specifically, did Moses write about Jesus? If such a claim holds weight, why then do Jewish scholars and communities reject Jesus, asserting that the Torah contains no reference to him?

 

Objectively speaking, from a neutral perspective neither Jewish nor Christian the Jewish argument holds weight: there is no explicit mention of Jesus in the writings attributed to Moses.

 

Consider Jesus’ words: 'He wrote about me.' When someone writes about a person, it's expected that they make it clear who that person is  at the very least, offering some identifiable description, right?

 

The critical question remains: in which specific book and verse does Moses explicitly identify Jesus as the one he was referring to?

 

Luke on the other hand, goes a step further by stating that Jesus said:

⁴⁴ He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

⁴⁵ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. ⁴⁶ He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,” [Luke 24]

 

According to Luke, the writings of Moses foretold the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This claim opens the door to further scrutiny, as it suggests a clear description we can now investigate. Regrettably, this claim does not hold up to scrutiny. Nowhere in the Torah is 'the Messiah' explicitly described as one who will suffer, die, and rise on the third day. There is no single passage that directly prophesies this sequence of events.

 

The term “Messiah” appears 39 times in the Hebrew Bible, while the phrase *המשיח* (HaMashiach – 'The Messiah' with the definite article) appears only four times. Yet, in the New Testament, Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46; Luke 24:44–46). The question is: where exactly is he mentioned as “The Messiah” המשיח in the writings of Moses?

 

This leads to two possible explanations. One: the 'Torah' to which Jesus referred may have differed from the text available in present-day Christian Bibles. Two: the New Testament authors may have deliberately introduced or reinterpreted such claims in order to appeal to a Jewish audience and strengthen the case for Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.

 

If Christians cannot produce a direct, explicit, and unambiguous reference to Jesus in the writings of Moses, it raises a fair question: on what grounds do they expect Muslims to identify Prophet Muhammad Pbuh in a scripture they themselves by now should confirm as being altered or corrupted?

 

Unless Christians can substantiate the claims made in John 5:46 and Luke 24:44–46 with explicit textual evidence from the writings of Moses, the argument remains unproven.

What nullifies a Prophet?

Christians love to argue with Muslims on the authenticity of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. The question is, what criteria are they using to establish such a standard of judgment, and are those criteria applied consistently across all cases?

Let us use a couple of examples from their own Bible to determine whether their prophethood was ever nullified.

 

ISAIAH:

the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet,” and he did so, walking naked and barefoot. the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet,” and he did so, walking naked and barefoot. [Isaiah 20:3]

 

Isaiah was commanded by YAHWEH to walk NAKED for three years. Question is, how many Christians would call Isaiah a false Prophet?

 

HOSEA:

“When the LORD first began speaking to Israel through Hosea, he said to him, “Go and marry a prostitute, so that some of her children will be conceived in prostitution.” [Hosea 1:2]

 

“And the LORD said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress,” [Hosea :1]

 

Hosea is commanded twice to be intimate with a whore and have children.

 

MOSES:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every infant girl who has never slept with a man.(Numbers 31:17-18)

Note, in all instances GOD [Yahweh] commanded them to do what they did, they were following a direct revelation. The question remains, was their prophethood nullified?

 

KING DAVID:

One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” David sent messengers to get her, and when she came to him, he slept with her. Now she had just been purifying herself from her uncleanness. Afterward, she returned home.  [2 Samuel 11.2-4]

 

Was King David’s Prophethood nullified after he fornicated with Bathesheba a married girl?

 

AARON:

He [Aaron] took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf. (Exodus 32:4)

 

Did GOD [Yahweh] nullify Aaron’s Prophethood or Priesthood?

 

Though the two prophets mentioned above  King David and Aaron were not instructed by God, the fact that they committed hideous acts out of their own free will and still retained their prophethood shows that such matters were not sufficient for God [Yahweh] to nullify their status as prophets.

 

Christians agree if God reveals a message to a Prophet, it becomes a divine decree that must be implemented without compromise. Regardless of what the message is, whether is involves marrying a prostitute or walking naked, as demonstrated in the verses referenced  above.

 

Let us see if Christians will be consistent if we apply the divine degree using our paradigm. Did you know it was already decreed by Allah Swt that Prophet Muhammed Pbuh would marry our Mother Aisha RA?

 

Narrated `Aisha:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "[Sahih al-Bukhari 7012]

 

 

Narrated `Aisha:

“The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light…” [Sahih al-Bukhari 6982]

 

As can be read in the authentic ahadith, Prophet Muhammed Pbuh received divine inspiration through dreams regarding his marriage to our Mother Aisha RA. By biblical standards, Christians should not have an issue with this marriage, considering it was a divine decree from God Almighty.

 

If anything, Christians should embrace this as a continuation of Prophetic revelations, where God Almighty decides what He wills. There is no compromise in such matters.

 

Regarding the polemic on the age of our Mother Aisha RA. Firstly, if you read the hadith, her age at the time of marriage was mentioned by her directly not by someone else which indicates that she was neither embarrassed nor hesitant to disclose it. Secondly, since there is no specified age of consent for marriage in the Bible, Christians need not delve too deeply into this issue, as the central argument age is absent from their own scripture. This effectively undermines the basis of the argument they are attempting to make. In other words, they are building an argument without a premise.

 

If your premise is based on 21st-century norms, then you’ve committed the fallacy of presentism  judging the past by modern standards. This approach can easily backfire, especially considering that many rulings found in the Bible do not align with contemporary laws and values. For example, while homosexuality is permissible and legally protected in many European countries today, the Bible explicitly condemns it as an abomination and a punishable offense as seen in Leviticus 18:22, a divine decree from God [Yahweh]. So, by 21st-century standards, would you then reject what your own scripture teaches and instead endorse or practice what it prohibits?

 

Christians need to move past the issue of Prophet Muhammed’s Pbuh marriage to our Mother Aisha RA, as if it somehow nullifies his prophethood. This polemic is akin to a drowning person clutching at straws  weak, desperate, and unconvincing. It's time to move beyond this and present more substantial arguments.