By Ryan Hemelaar
Recently there was a Muslim evangelistic lecture held in Brisbane's City Hall and unfortunately I was unable to attend. This lecture was also advertised as having a Q&A period where anyone could ask the lecturer about Islam. So I asked a Muslim friend if he could email my questions to the Muslim lecturer because recently I have come across some logical inconsistencies with Islam, so I was wondering whether they would be able to be resolved or not.
The lecturer was Sheikh Yusuf Estes, a popular Muslim apologist that claims to be an Ex-Christian preacher.
My initial email:
My three arguments about Islam are as follows:
Argument from Allah's Justice
- Allah is claimed to be just in the Qur'an (6:115).
- Allah is not just in reality.
- Therefore, Allah does not exist (using law of non-contradiction within logic).
To support the second premise, the Haddith states that if a person becomes a Muslim, Allah will not punish them for the sins they have committed before they were a Muslim (Saheeh Muslim #121 & Mosnad Ahmad #17357). Thus, Allah does not satisfy the demands of the law and is not just.
Argument from the Gospel
- The Qur'an states that the gospel of Jesus was given by Allah (3:3; 5:46).
- The gospel of Jesus is that Jesus died and rose from the dead and that we can be saved through faith in him.
- The Qur'an denies the truth of the gospel of Jesus.
- The Qur'an states that Allah words cannot change (6:34; 6:115; 10:64).
- Therefore, the Qur'an is not a revelation of God (using law of non-contradiction within logic).
To support the second premise: "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
To support the third premise: Surah 4:157 states that Jesus was not crucified.
Argument from Jesus' Crucifiction
- The Qur'an states that Jesus not really die on the cross, but rather Allah made it appear as though he did (4:157).
- Fooling someone to believe something that is not true, is decieving.
- Therefore, Allah is a deciever, and thus a sinner like me and you.
- The Qur'an states that Allah is the most holy one (62:1).
- Therefore, Allah does not exist (using law of non-contradiction within logic).
I can support each premise further if you require it. I am looking forward to hearing back from you.
Ryan Hemelaar
Dr. Yusuf Estes' response:
I have read the so-called questions and "logical" conclusions being made by some critic of the Quran and promoter of the "Gospel". Let me share with you some important considerations, inshallah.
Real questions do not contain false statements and "pretend arguments". Not all everyone who uses big words is a "scholar". Some pretend to have knowledge about logic and religion, when in fact they have neither.
Here are some real facts about real religion (use your own real logic):
1. English did not exist at the time of any of the prophets. (The Normans invaded the Saxons in 1066 A.D. and then began the English language). Therefore, no document could have contained a single word of English. Logical conclusion: we cannot have this discussion quoting documents in English.
2. The language of Jesus (real name: Essa) was Aramaic. Mel Gibson went to Syria to have the last people on earth still speaking this language to help him have the right words for his movie, "The Passion of Christ". Therefore, any discussion of any text or speech from Jesus (Essa) must be in Aramaic (or at least a similar language from Semitic roots such as Hebrew or Arabic).
3. There is no extant document attributed to Jesus (Essa) nor any of his followers, nor any of their followers. Therefore, we have nothing to discuss about what Jesus may or may not have said, based on statements coming decades later after he left this earth.
4. True scholars of the Bible, like Bart Ehram (author of "Misquoting Jesus"), tell us "We do not have a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of any authentic manuscript from the Bible. Therefore, according to manuscript scholars, the "Gospel" does not exit and has not existed for nearly two thousand years.
5. Today, there are many "versions" of the so-called "Bible" (the word "bible" is actually from Koine Greek "biblios" and it just means "book"). These many "books" have variant and different chapters, different verses, added verses, missing verses and mixed up wording and even different meanings of words. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant Bible came out of the Catholic Bible and the "Protestants" (opposing the church) threw out 7 books, leaving only 66 and some of these they changed around. Therefore, the Protestant Bible cannot be the "real" Bible in any language.
Logical conclusion: Since we cannot produce the real "book", we cannot have a "logical" discussion about something that does not exist.
Now let us consider the Quran:
1. The word "Quran" in Arabic language means "recitation". Therefore, it must be "recited" in Arabic to be the actual Quran.
2. The "Quran" is recited today in the Arabic language. Therefore, it still exists.
3. People still memorize it, in Arabic, from mouth to ear, just as it was recited and passed down for centuries in the past. Therefore, it is a "Quran" (recital).
4. Over a billion people scattered all across the earth are reciting it exactly the same as each other, line for line, word for word, letter for letter without having to compare to each other for revision. Therefore, this must be a mighty document of some sort.
5. 90 Percent of all of the reciters of the Quran are not Arab speakers, yet they are reciting and memorizing this huge recital from beginning to end in Arabic without different versions or variant chapters or verses. Therefore, this is unlike any other recital on earth.
6. More than 10,000,000 people living on the earth today, from many different cultures, countries and languages have memorized the entire Quran, in Arabic. Therefore, The Quran must have some amazing appeal and attraction to these people.
7. Statements in the Quran over 1,400 years ago regarding many areas of science have proved to be totally accurate and discovered only recently, have caused even atheist scientists to come to believe the Quran must be from some Higher Power or Intelligent Designer. Therefore, the Quran could not be from someone living in the desert 1,400 years ago - who did not even know how to read or write.
8. Quran makes challenges to the disbelievers, if they are in doubt about it, then bring a book like it. Another challange says, bring 10 chapters like it. And another tells the disbelievers if it were from other than Allah they would find in it many contradictions. And they have never found one. Therefore, The Quran is what it claims to be (A Recitation from The Creator).
9. These people will make us things, misquote things, twist things and give their own interpretations to things which are already clear. They will lie and when they are caught, they will deny.
Therefore, they are not what they claim to be (scholars).
Conclusion: The Quran is not the problem here; their disbelief is the real problem.
The Quran states in the very beginning, in Chapter 2, regarding disbelievers, "Whether you warn them or warn them not, they will not believe."
So, keeping that in mind, I will simply tell you, the way the questions were presented are so out of touch with reason, so laughable, no one would bother to entertain such nonsense as a serious discussion.
Let the person who made this up enjoy themselves while they can. Be patient, smile and say, "Thank you for asking about my religion. Please take a free copy of the Quran, learn the Arabic language and then when you have understood what you are reading, come back and let us have a worthwhile and meaningful discussion. Until them, have a nice life."
Peace - salam alaykum - to all seeking guidance, ameen.
Yusuf Estes
My reply:
Hi Yusuf,
I've responded to a number your points below:
1. English did not exist at the time of any of the prophets. (The Normans invaded the Saxons in 1066 A.D. and then began the English language). Therefore, no document could have contained a single word of English. Logical conclusion: we cannot have this discussion quoting documents in English. I'm sorry, that conclusion does not logically follow. The Bible has been translated into English so people who speak English can read it. On the other hand, I agree it is a good thing to look at what the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts say to get a more precise meaning. However that does not mean we cannot quote scripture in the vernacular.
2. The language of Jesus (real name: Essa) was Aramaic. Mel Gibson went to Syria to have the last people on earth still speaking this language to help him have the right words for his movie, "The Passion of Christ". Therefore, any discussion of any text or speech from Jesus (Essa) must be in Aramaic (or at least a similar language from Semitic roots such as Hebrew or Arabic). However the New Testament documents (which record Jesus' life and sayings) were written in Greek, so we should look at what they say.
3. There is no extant document attributed to Jesus (Essa) nor any of his followers, nor any of their followers. Therefore, we have nothing to discuss about what Jesus may or may not have said, based on statements coming decades later after he left this earth. That is a blatant falsehood. All the epistles and gospels were written by followers of Jesus (and many of them also physically followed him as well). Additionally, the New Testament documents were written not too long after Jesus' ascension. In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, in chapter 15, Paul points out who Jesus had shown himself to after being risen from the dead, and one of the groups consisted of over 500 people, then he says: "of whom most are still alive today." So if Paul was making it up, it would be so easy for them to check with one of those witnesses to see if he was telling the truth and if not, Christianity would be shown to be a fraud and die away. And undoubtedly they did check with those witnesses, but Christianity did not die because Jesus was truly risen and the witnesses couldn't deny it.
4. True scholars of the Bible, like Bart Ehram (author of "Misquoting Jesus"), tell us "We do not have a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of any authentic manuscript from the Bible. Therefore, according to manuscript scholars, the "Gospel" does not exit and has not existed for nearly two thousand years. Firstly, Bart Ehrman has been dismissed by the consensus of Biblical scholarship as being completely wrong. He is very left field. Secondly, we have very extensive Biblical manuscript evidence that we can know to a very high degree of certainty what the original manuscripts said. The verses I quoted which expel what the gospel is are not questioned at all (even by Bart), so thus my original argument still stands.
5. Today, there are many "versions" of the so-called "Bible" (the word "bible" is actually from Koine Greek "biblios" and it just means "book"). These many "books" have variant and different chapters, different verses, added verses, missing verses and mixed up wording and even different meanings of words. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant Bible came out of the Catholic Bible and the "Protestants" (opposing the church) threw out 7 books, leaving only 66 and some of these they changed around. Therefore, the Protestant Bible cannot be the "real" Bible in any language. The Catholic Bible includes 7 extra books because it also includes the apocrypha. These books were not accepted by the early New Testament Church as being scripture and only appeared in some Bibles at a later date. In fact by the end of the second century, the Church had already agreed that the books we have in standard Bible today are Scripture, because they meet the specific requirements.
Also, make sure you remember that the English Bibles we have today are not infallible, but rather they just translations from the original language. Just like the Qur'an has been translated into English, (and there are quite a few translations), so has the Bible (and there are many translations as well). So we should go to the original language if we want to get a more precise meaning, but because careful translating work has been performed on the Bible, we can read the English ones to get the meaning of the Scripture.
Logical conclusion: Since we cannot produce the real "book", we cannot have a "logical" discussion about something that does not exist. Your premises are not validated, so thus the conclusion does not logically follow.
1. The word "Quran" in Arabic language means "recitation". Therefore, it must be "recited" in Arabic to be the actual Quran.
2. The "Quran" is recited today in the Arabic language. Therefore, it still exists. I agree that the Qur'an exists, but the critical question is, is it true?
3. People still memorize it, in Arabic, from mouth to ear, just as it was recited and passed down for centuries in the past. Therefore, it is a "Quran" (recital).
4. Over a billion people scattered all across the earth are reciting it exactly the same as each other, line for line, word for word, letter for letter without having to compare to each other for revision. Therefore, this must be a mighty document of some sort. However, that is false. I can name at least seven authoritative readers (eg: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, etc) where there are a massive amount of variations. In the Islamic 4th century, due to the fact that Arabic lacked vowel signs and diacriticals (to distinguish between certain consonants) it was decided to return to readings from these authoritative readers, with two transmitters to ensure accuracy.
So then, what do we see across the world today, do Muslims recite the exact same text? Warsh's transmission of Nafi's reading is prominent in Algeria, Morocco, West Africa and Sudan. But Qalun's transmission of Nafi's reading is prominent in Libya, Tunisia, and parts of Qatar. Yet they are different. One Muslim Scholar said: "Certain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died." (Cyril Glassé)
5. 90 Percent of all of the reciters of the Quran are not Arab speakers, yet they are reciting and memorizing this huge recital from beginning to end in Arabic without different versions or variant chapters or verses. Therefore, this is unlike any other recital on earth. If a person can recite the Qur'an (which must be in Arabic), then they would be an Arabic speaker. So your premise is literally self-refuting.
6. More than 10,000,000 people living on the earth today, from many different cultures, countries and languages have memorized the entire Quran, in Arabic. Therefore, The Quran must have some amazing appeal and attraction to these people. Sure, there may be some appeal to it, but that does not make it true. There are a lot of novels that appeal to a lot of people. If you think it makes it true, that commits the fallacy argumentum ad populum.
7. Statements in the Quran over 1,400 years ago regarding many areas of science have proved to be totally accurate and discovered only recently, have caused even atheist scientists to come to believe the Quran must be from some Higher Power or Intelligent Designer. Therefore, the Quran could not be from someone living in the desert 1,400 years ago - who did not even know how to read or write. Well I've actually read the proofs for Islam and I find them very unconvincing. I've read "A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understand Islam" by I.A. Ibrahim. The Qur'anic texts it tries to quote to prove its point, do not say what they want it to say.
8. Quran makes challenges to the disbelievers, if they are in doubt about it, then bring a book like it. Another challange says, bring 10 chapters like it. And another tells the disbelievers if it were from other than Allah they would find in it many contradictions. And they have never found one. Therefore, The Quran is what it claims to be (A Recitation from The Creator). However, I have found contradictions within it (Allah's justice, etc). And that is why I wanted you to respond to them, but you hardly talked about them at all!
9. These people will make us things, misquote things, twist things and give their own interpretations to things which are already clear. They will lie and when they are caught, they will deny. Therefore, they are not what they claim to be (scholars). Please show me where I may have misquoted verses from the Qur'an or whatever. I want to know.
Conclusion: The Quran is not the problem here; their disbelief is the real problem. However, you are yet to respond to my original objections against Islam...the Qur'an is still the problem because once again, your premises in this argument are false.
"So, keeping that in mind, I will simply tell you, the way the questions were presented are so out of touch with reason, so laughable, no one would bother to entertain such nonsense as a serious discussion." Ok then sir, show me which logical fallacies I committed. Because currently, all my arguments still stand.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Hemelaar
This is the response I got from Fuwaad Mohammed of Discover Islam Australia that he sent to my Muslim friend:
you can see that it is quite obvious that this person has mind up his mind and does not want honest answers. He speaks about being logical with the Quran and Islam but doesnt want to apply it Christianity and the Bible.
When a person makes room in himself/herself for fair discussions and objective talk, there can be progress, when he seals his mind from accepting anything else such as this persons case, there will not be any progress. Instead we make dua to Allah to guide him.
We do not want to waste our time with this individual who is taking you for a ride. The sheikh doesn't want to respond to him any more as well. I suggest you read your mates emails and the sheikhs and you yourself will get a fair idea of where the shaikh stands.
May Allah reward you for your efforts - please keep in mind that just because we are able to prove a point doesnt mean that a person will accept Islam. Muhammad (PBUH) perfomed miracles in front of the Quraish yet they disbelieved. For them is their deen and for us ours.
You see that is the best Muslims have. Sheikh Yusuf Estes hardly even responded to any of my initial arguments. But rather he just went on the offence against the Bible, however he lacked any real factual evidence. If these logical inconsistencies within Islam cannot be resolved, even by leading Muslim apologists, I cannot understand how any rational person could continue to be a Muslim once they learn about these internal contradictions.
On the other hand, Christianity suffers from no logical inconsistencies. And if someone brings one up, we would be more than happy to examine it to see if it is true.
