Shared publicly  - 
4
1
IACR Da'awah's profile photoMuhammad Saleem Khalid's profile photoAaron Goerner's profile photoDr Shoaib Bin Aleem's profile photo
55 comments
 
+Sandra Ibrahim AbdElgalil - Yes, the Christian Scriptures do apply Isaiah 53 to Jesus’ death on the cross. It was also the prophet Isaiah who spoke of the Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7).

Hebrews 5 does not deny Jesus’ death on the cross. Jesus was delivered from death through His resurrection from the dead. See Hebrews 13:20-21.

Islam’s denial of Jesus’ death on the cross undermines the Quran’s credibility because the death of Jesus on the cross and His burial was an event in history. Muhammad lived hundreds of years after the event and is therefore not a credible witness.

I think that four witnesses with regard to adultery is a good thing. Adultery is a serious charge and witnesses should be required. And yet, Muhammad’s claim that the Christian Scriptures are adulterated is an even more serious claim. What testimony/witnesses did Muhammad give to support his allegation that the Christian Scriptures are adulterated? Where’s the proof that Jesus did not die on the cross?

Many people who were not eyewitnesses or have access to 1st century eyewitnesses and have denied Jesus’ death on the cross. But this is not good history and therefore it does not make for good theology. People, including Muslims, have tried corrupting the Scriptures by adding new books of the Bible hundreds of years later and the Gospel of Barnabas is a good example.

The historical “fact” remains: Jesus died on the cross. It’s bad, irrational, and untrue theology that says otherwise. I've written more about it here:
http://www.bible-quran.com/book/jesus-death-cross/
 
+Usman Khalid - Can you summarize in your own words the argument you find convincing from Dr. Naik?
 
Saying that Jesus' so called death and so called resurrection are historical facts is the BIGGEST THEOLOGICAL LIE in the human history :)
 
+Aaron Goerner It's 3 hours video. How can I summarize all. But IACR Da'awah said it well.
And to know the answer of why, please watch the video.
 
Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) never died on the cross and He was lifted to Heaven by the Will of Almighty Allah and He will re-come to the earth at the place of Jerusalem.
 
Actually it's the ABSENCE of historical evidence based on which this FALSE CLAIM is considered as a LIE. Have you come across any INDEPENDENT historical source of that age confirming that Jesus pbuh was dead and was resurrected? :)
 
+IACR Da'awah - Yes, there are independent historical sources that Jesus died on the cross: Josephus and Tacitus. Do you have any historical sources within the first hundred years of Jesus that say Jesus did not die on the cross? If you can't provide early historical sources from within the first 100 years of Jesus wouldn't you agree that Islam's claim is false?

As for_ independent_ historical sources for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead:I'm not aware of any because the testimony/belief that Jesus rose again from the dead is a self-involving claim that identifies one with Christianity. It would be like my asking you for early “independent” (e.g. non-Muslim) historical sources that affirmed that Muhammad was a prophet of God, spoke with the angel Gabriel, and recited the true Word of God. Such a belief is self-involving. Perhaps you have early evidence for this? If not, it would be understandable because such beliefs are “self-involving*.

Historian NT Wright gives a helpful explanation of self-involving claims:

“There are various levels of self-involving statements. If, walking down the street, I say ‘I think that was the Number 10 bus’, the statement is only minimally self-involving; I do not want to go where the Number 10 bus goes, and anyway I prefer to walk. But if, arriving breathless at the bus-stop on the way to a vital appointment, I look despairingly up the street and say ‘I think that was the Number 10 bus’, knowing that the next one is not due for another two hours and that there is no other means of arriving on time, the statement not only involves me, it plunges me into gloom. The point is that one cannot say ‘Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead’ with the minimal involvement of the first of those statements. If it happened, it matters. The world is a different place from what it would be if it did not happen. The person who makes the statement is committed to living in this different world, this newly envisioned universe of discourse, imagination and action.”

“In the same way—this is not so often noticed, but it is just as important—for someone to say ‘Jesus of Nazareth was not bodily raised from the dead’ is equally self-involving” (The Resurrection of the Son of God”, 714).
As for evidence of Jesus' death on the cross:
-Jesus testified to His death on multiple occasions.
-There were eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus on the cross.
-There is the testimony of people who participated in the burial of Jesus’ dead body. (see the above video)
-Non-Christian sources refer to Jesus death under Pontius Pilate.

I'm looking forward for your early historical evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross. If it existed, have you ever wondered why other historians believe otherwise because every reputable non-Islamic historian that I am aware of affirms that Jesus died on the cross.
 
Historians deny the history written in Bible and accuse the authors of Bible of fabrication and mutilation of facts. They even deny that there was any Jesus as depicted in Bible.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
So, the reputable non-Islamic historians actually deny presence of any Jesus of Nazarath what to talk of his crucifixion.
The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said who was not one of the twelve and candidly admits that he never met Jesus in person. Christianity, as it is today, is really what Paul wanted it to be.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/jesus.html
 
Sandra Ibrahim - I had a lengthy dialogue with Pastor Aaron about the issue of Trinity, Crucifixion and Textual history of Quran and Bible. He keeps on repeating the same things without paying any attention to what you say. You may bring many facts from history because you are a historian but he would only accept what, in his view, the Bible says. Logic will not work with him but I would still encourage you to quote the historical facts for those who want to listen to the truth. May Allah be with you!
 
+Sandra Ibrahim AbdElgalil, I’m sorry that somebody is upsetting you. Care to explain? Google+ also allows you to block poeple. Also, the Gospel of Barnabas was a late forgery.
 
Brother Aaron Goerner

I am surprised why you are talking a question like a desperate and naive missionary. How could you say... "Do you have any historical sources within the first hundred years of Jesus that say Jesus did not die on the cross? If you can't provide early historical sources from within the first 100 years of Jesus wouldn't you agree that Islam's claim is false?"

It's so naive as me asking you "Do you have any historical evidences to say that Mr Tom wasn't killed by a lion in the jungles of Amazon on 25th December of the year 538 BC? If NO, then you must believe it as historical fact because the local tribes believe it to be true!" :)
 
+IACR Da'awah, would you explain to me who Mr Tom is? Is he mentioned in the Quran and the Bible? Do you believe that he lived and died in the manner you described? If so, why? If not, how is this relevant?
I've given you the evidence you asked for concerning Jesus' death on the cross. I'm looking forward to some better answers than Mr. Tom. :)
 
Here is another funny explanation by you... "As for_ independent_ historical sources for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead:I'm not aware of any because the testimony/belief that Jesus rose again from the dead is a self-involving claim that identifies one with Christianity. It would be like my asking you for early “independent” (e.g. non-Muslim) historical sources that affirmed that Muhammad was a prophet of God, spoke with the angel Gabriel, and recited the true Word of God. Such a belief is self-involving. Perhaps you have early evidence for this? If not, it would be understandable because such beliefs are “self-involving*."

Did ANYONE ask you to show historical evidence to say...
JESUS WAS GOD?
JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD?
JESUS IS SITTING ON THE THRONE WITH GOD?
and so on. These are the things which need faith. But birth, death, rule, war, peace, execution, resurrection all these things can be verified factually by believers and non believers as well.

Just like non Muslim historians confirm that Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) was...
Born in Makkah,
Preached Islam
Migrated to Madina, died there
His close associates succeeded him as leaders etc.

Concluding...
You admitted that the Christian world doesn't have ANY INDEPENDENT historical evidence to say that Jesus was dead or that he was resurrected. Hence what I said stands admitted and proven...

"Saying that Jesus' so called death and so called resurrection are historical facts is the BIGGEST THEOLOGICAL LIE in the human history :)"
 
+IACR Da'awah, I'm not sure what you are arguing for regarding Mr. Tom or why you don't accept the independent historical evidence I've given for Jesus' death. Please explain.

I agree with you that there is a difference between history and theology or history and the interpretation of history. But do you believe that the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad is not historical? Was this something that Muslims believe nobody else witnessed? Regardless, my point was that some beliefs are self-involving including the rejection of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

You've asserted an absence of evidence for Jesus' death on the cross, but I have provided the evidence.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem- would you please clarify your argument for me. I want to make sure I'm understanding you:
_(1) Reputable historians question the Bible and aspects of Jesus' history.
(2) Since certain things about Jesus are historically disputable, His death on the cross is disputable._
Please let me know if this is a fair summary.
Also, are you saying that it was only the Apostle Paul who taught Jesus' death on the cross? If not, please clarify.
Thanks in advance.
 
Brother Aaron Goerner

(You are not seeing the simple difference between the cases which demand positive evidence and the cases which demand negative evidence.)

However, coming to your required information about Mr Tom, they believe him as the only begotten son of their god who died a cruel death inside a lion's cage for the sins of his tribe.

PLEASE DON'T DEVIATE AND TALK ABOUT SHOWING EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THIS DIDN'T EXIST!
 
You said... "You've asserted an absence of evidence for Jesus' death on the cross, but I have provided the evidence."

May be I have missed out. Please take the trouble to copy-paste for me, what is the INDEPENDENT historical evidence which confirms that Jesus died on cross.
 
+IACR Da'awah, you stated there was an absence of evidence for Jesus' death on the cross. I gave independent evidence from the frist century attesting to Jesus' death citing Josephus and Tacitus. There's also a plethora of evidence from first century Christian sources:
-Jesus testified to His death on multiple occasions.
-There were eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus on the cross.
-There is the testimony of people who participated in the burial of Jesus’ dead body. (see the above video)

This means there is no absence of evidence as you have asserted.

Before discussing Mr. Tom's death in the sixth century BC, I need evidence that Mr Tom lived in the 6th century BC. If somebody never lived, then you're going to have a hard time proving that he died.

I've given historical evidence that He died. I'm waiting for your historical evidence to the contrary. Again, my question as stated above, Do you have any historical sources within the first hundred years of Jesus that say Jesus did not die on the cross? But let me ask ask another question: Do you have any historical sources within the first hundred years of Jesus saying Jesus lived?

-I'm looking for the historic evidence that Mr. Tom lived.
-I'm looking for your first century historic evidence that Jesus lived.
-I'm looking for your first century historic evidence that Jesus did not die.
-I'm also still waiting for your answer to the above question I asked about Gabriel and Muhammad.
 
Any one who has read book of Ahmad Deedaat "Crucifixion or Crucifiction" with unbiased approach can see the worth of evidence given in Bible regarding death and ressurection of Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him).
Aaron - Please open the links I have given and you will know what "historians" talk about your Bible and Christianity.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem, I'd be happy to discuss the links you sent. Can you first answer my previous questions asking for clarification?
 
+Sandra Ibrahim AbdElgalil - Muslims need to demonstrate from manuscript evidence and/or history that somebody tried and was successful in changing the New Testament so that it now teaches Jesus died on the cross. Muslims have sometimes submited the Gospel of Barnabas as evidence. There is an irony in this because Muslims who appeal to the Gospel of Barnabas are guilty of doing the very thing of which they accuse others: adding to and/or corrupting the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament (tahrif).
Even though Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, you can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

I admit that Wikipedia isn’t always the best source for academic information, and so here is a quote from a highly acclaimed academic encyclopedia,

“A text called the Gospel of Barnabas has had a wide circulation in modern times. It was discovered in an Italian manuscript in Amsterdam in 1709. Since its translation into Arabic in the early 20th century, some have claimed that it preserves the original Gospel, of which the Qurʾān speaks. In fact, the Gospel of Barnabas has been shown to have its origins in the western Mediterranean world, probably in Spain, in the 16th century.” ("Gospel." Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe; Brill [Leiden and Boston], 2005. CD-ROM version).

Sandra, I agree that people have tried to add things to the Bible or take them out. Even Muslims have tried doing this as our discussion of the Gospel of Barnabas demonstrates. But it can be figured out what was original and what was not by comparing different copies.
 
Brother Aaron Goerner

1. You need to understand the consequences of adjectives. If you say crucifixion is a fact, it will be taken as your belief. If you say it's HISTORICAL fact, you must produce INDEPENDENT historical evidence. If you say it's a SCIENTIFIC fact, then you must produce evidence from EXISTING ESTABLISHED SCIENCE. Please avoid using lofty adjectives in future :)

2. You may now withdraw the term HISTORICAL from your claim that the so called crucifixion and the resurrection are HISTORICAL facts because you have failed to produce any independent historical evidence except the beliefs of some of the mistaken individuals and some of unreliable religious texts. You have the freedom to BELIEVE IT AS A FACT, BUT DON'T CLAIM THAT IT IS A HISTORICAL FACT.

3. You have also failed to produce INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL evidence to deny the death of Mr Tom. Hence, now you must admit that the Amazon tribal's view is correct and authentic. If you are ready to accept that, then you are eligible to preach to Non Christians to believe in the Christian false-concepts of so called death and resurrection as HISTORICAL facts.

Hope that's clear :)
 
+IACR Da'awah — The life of Jesus and His death are not just personal beliefs of Christians but events that happened in history. That’s why I’ve given historical evidence with an emphasis on Jesus' death. You’ve asserted that the evidence I’ve given is mistaken and unreliable, but you have not explained why.

Is the Muslim belief that Jesus lived in history a historical belief? If so, it would be helpful for me if you gave me your “independent historic evidence”that Jesus lived. If not, then what kind of belief is it?

You still haven’t answered my questions:

-I'd like your historic evidence that Mr. Tom lived.
-If you have historic evidence that Jesus lived in the first century, then I’d like your historic evidence that Jesus did not die since this is the belief of Muslims. Or is this some other kind of belief that is not historical?
-I'm also still waiting for your answer to the above question I asked about Gabriel and Muhammad.

It’s unclear to me why I must provide independent historical evidence for Mr.Tom’s death, but you don’t need to provide evidence that he lived or died.Please explain. Lastly, please define for me what you mean by "independent historical evidence." I thought I knew what you were talking about previously when I gave the above quote from NT Wright, but it sounds like you may mean something else.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem, your cure is worse than the disease. Let me explain by taking a closer look at the “reputable” historians and “facts from history” you have offered.

It is arguable whether or not Jim Walker is a “reputable non-Islamic historian.” Nevertheless, if Jim Walker is right about rejecting such things as Jesus’ miracles, then the Quran is also wrong. Dr., if there was historically no “presence of any Jesus of Nazareth” then you’ve undermined Islam. This is why I say your cure is worse than the disease. It would be like a patient going to you with a headache and you cut off her head.

Furthermore, the nobeliefs website you referenced also has articles about “THE PROBLEMS WITH ISLAM”: http://www.nobeliefs.com/islam.htm Is this reputable source you sent me also reputable for rejecting Islam? If not, why not? Please explain your “logic.”

You referenced Piero Scaruffi to support your assertions about Paul. Is it your belief that it was only the Apostle Paul who taught Jesus' death on the cross? If not, please clarify what you stated previously.

Do you agree with what Piero Scaruffi wrote about Islam?
“The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed. To make sure that his version of the facts would never be contested, Uthman had all other scriptures burned in Medina. Anyone who questioned the authenticity of Uthman's Quran was persecuted and probably did not survive to tell his story. Islam as it is today is the result of this corrupt dictator's actions, of an enemy of Mohammed.”
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/islam.html

Elsewhere, Piero Scaruffi wrote of “Unspeakable Islamic terrorism” discussing the removal of “embarrassing clues as to prophet Mohammed's true life and origin.”
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/arabs.html#arab0804

Dr., if you are a Muslim, would you please explain to me the“logic” of your referencing Piero Scaruffi, since he also argues against major tenants of Islam? (see also http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/arabs.html#arab0804).This is why I’m saying your “logic” (cure) is worse than the alleged disease (Christian belief in the historic event of Jesus’ death on the cross). If you believed the sources you sent me, you would no longer be a Muslim.

Dr., you sent a Wikipedia link for the “Christ Myth Theory.” I again ask about your “logic” because I was under the impression that you were a Muslim who believed Jesus was a historical figure.

Jim Walker—the “reputable” historian you referenced—said, “So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask for the author's birth date. Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.” Dr., do you believe Jesus was a historical figure? If so,what is your historical evidence that falls within the time of Jesus? Furthermore, please give your historical evidence for Muhammad’s claim that Jesus did not die on the cross because according to the reputable historian you cited: Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.

+khalifhudeen mcclure - since you +1’d the Dr.’s comments, perhaps you could also explain the logic of all this?

Dr. if you accept the arguments of the “scholars” and sources you sent to me as they refer to Christianity, then what does this do for the Quran and Muslim belief in Jesus? Wouldn’t it also undermine Islam and the Quran because the Quran assumes Jesus was a person who lived in history and there are even similarities between Jesus in the Quran and Jesus in the Bible (e.g. Virgin Birth, miracles, Ascension into Heaven)? This is why I say the Muslim Dr.’s cure is worse than the disease.

Dr., it is true that there are some who deny Jesus’ existence and the historicity of other aspects of His life as found in the Bible. There are also historians and scholars who deny Islamic historical beliefs. There are even some such as Prof. Muhammad Sven Kalisch who don’t believe it can be proven whether Muhammad lived or died: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html (see also Professor Karl-Heinz Ohlig; Volker Popp; etc.).

My view has been that such people are on the fringe.However, your “logic” can be turned around and used against you:
(1) Muhammad denied Jesus’ death on the cross.
(2) Some historians question whether Muhammad even lived.
(3) Therefore, Muhammad’s denial about Jesus’ death is questionable since Muhammad may never even have lived.

Yes Dr., we’ve had previous discussions, but you have a habit of not answering points, arguments, and questions I raise. Another problem is that many of your “answers” and “arguments” are just cutting and pasting links you tell me to read.

Hopefully you will read to understand what I’ve said and give answer in your own words and not just send website references as you are in the habit of doing and then making exaggerated claims to others about your “logic.”

In a previous conversation, I asked you for the names of the four who collected the Quran. You said the answer was in a link you sent me, but it was not. If interested, others can read and see your “logic” first hand in other discussions we’ve had:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/113295341642895753019/posts/2U5Vjppsg1g
https://plus.google.com/u/0/113295341642895753019/posts/dVp6mK57qYo

As for Deedat:
(1) Deedat argues that Jesus was placed on the cross but only swooned. This isn'ttrue to the Bible. Is it true to the Quran? Did Deedat try refuting Christianity with arguments that also contradict the Quran?

(2) Deedat asked about Quran 4:157, "Could anyone have been more EXPLICIT, more EMPHATIC, more DOGMATIC, more UNCOMPROMISING..." My answer is: ABSOLUTELY AND WITHOUT DOUBT! The Quran’s lack of clarity about the crucifixion is demonstrated by the fact that there is Muslim confusion and conjecture about the crucifixion. Some Muslims(Ahmadiyya) believe Jesus was crucified but did not die on the cross. Other Muslims say Jesus was never placed on the cross but that one of Jesus' disciples was put on the cross. Still others say Tatianos was crucified. The Quran is so unclear on this point that some scholars say Jesus’ death on the cross is compatible with other verses in the Quran about Jesus’ death (see Joseph Cumming, Did Jesus Die on the Cross? The History of Reflection on the End of His Earthly Life in Sunni Tafsir Literature [Yale University, 2001]).

(3) If you think the confused and convoluted Islamic position about Jesus and the cross is the true and historical one, then historical reasons need to be given. You need to historically explain how and why the Christian, Jewish, and non-Christian version of the crucifixion is the historical record and not the Muslim account. Muslims have had some 1,400 years to give historical justification for their alternative view of the crucifixion,but they have not been able to come up with anything historically substantial.I’m asking you to provide something historically substantial (Itmām al-hujjah).
 
+khalifhudeen mcclure - so where does Paul "candidly" admit he "never met Jesus in person"?
If the crucifixion story is based on Paul, then why do other followers of Jesus like Peter and John mention it? If the crucifixion story of Paul is not true, then where is the true account to be found from the 1st century?
 
Aaron - You are a psychotic patient who is unaware of his disease and thinks those trying to cure him are his enemies trying to kill him. Your faith is based on history not mine. You are trying to judge the truthfulness of religion on basis of history not me. Historians dispute your believes on the basis of history. My beliefs are not based on history. So, you better answer the questions raised by historians on basis of history. I do not need to give any historical reasons because I have never claimed the truthfulness of Islam on basis of history.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem - Your beliefs about Jesus, the Quran, and Muhammad are not rooted in what God has done in history? Does this mean it doesn't matter to you whether or not Jesus lived in history? Does this mean that it doesn't matter to you whether Muhammad lived in history? If Muhammad did not live in history, this does not affect your view of the Quran? Are you saying the Quran makes no historical claims?

Dr., I think you've misrepresented the Christian position about God and history. Please read carefully: Christianity is rooted in what God has done in history. There is a connection between what Christians believe and what God has done in the world He created. See the chapter in my eBook that I sent to you entitled, "History, Doctrine, and Muslim Agnosticism."

Dr., you still need to answer the following:

-—If Jim Walker is right about rejecting such things as Jesus’ miracles, then the Quran is also wrong. Please explain why if there was no historical “presence of any Jesus of Nazareth,” then the Quran is still true.
—The nobeliefs website you referenced also has articles about “THE PROBLEMS WITH ISLAM”: http://www.nobeliefs.com/islam.htm Is this reputable source you sent me also reputable for rejecting Islam? If not, why not? Please explain your “logic.”
—Is it your belief that it was only the Apostle Paul who taught Jesus' death on the cross? If not, please clarify what you stated previously.
-Do you agree with what Piero Scaruffi historical assessment about the Quran?
“The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed. To make sure that his version of the facts would never be contested, Uthman had all other scriptures burned in Medina. Anyone who questioned the authenticity of Uthman's Quran was persecuted and probably did not survive to tell his story. Islam as it is today is the result of this corrupt dictator's actions, of an enemy of Mohammed.” Is this historically irrelevant to you? Is to acceptable for Muslims to believe this historical assessment? If not, why not?
—Dr. if you accept the arguments of the “scholars” and sources you sent to me as they refer to Christianity, then what does this do for the Quran and Muslim belief in Jesus?
—Is the Muslim belief that Jesus did not die on the cross a belief about what happened in history? If so,what is your historical evidence that falls within the time of Jesus? Furthermore, please give your historical evidence for Muhammad’s claim that Jesus did not die on the cross because according to the reputable historian you cited: Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.

You wrote, "Historians dispute your believes on the basis of history." Actually, most historians are persuaded by some Christian beliefs about Jesus such as Jesus' existence and His death on the cross. Historians that reject such things as Jesus' Virgin Birth, miracles or resurrection generally do not believe that God works in history. The issue therefore is not just with history, but whether God created the world and works in it. Nevertheless, other historians are persuaded by the historicity of both Jesus' death and resurrection.

I'm looking forward to your answering my questions. Hopefully you won't just send website references or make ad hominem remarks.
 
+khalifhudeen mcclure - you still haven't answered my questions. Nor have you explained what you meant that I "go to the most corrupt website of Islam haters..." Furthermore, if you visited my website you'd see that I am learning about Islam from some of the top scholars today such as Sheikh Ali Gomaa.
Still looking forward to answers and not evasions.
 
+khalifhudeen mcclure - Interesting. You'll criticize me for going to the "most corrupt website" but not the Dr.? I'm not sure about the Dr.'s logic either, but I've asked him to explain it.
 
Aaron - You think history is the criteria to judge whether a religion is right or wrong. If we analyze your religion on pure historical basis, your Bible is not considered as a credible source of historical events. There are historians who consider that the Biblical Jesus never existed as cited above. Others think that Jesus existed but not as depicted in Bible. (Search for "Historical Jesus"). You earlier failed to give any historical proof of virgin birth of Jesus and according to E.P Young, your Bible actually supports the Jewish point of view as quoted by you in previous discussion. Your religion does not fulfill the criteria laid down by yourself.
My belief is based on Quran not any History book. Its a miracle and a sign of Allah. I do not need any support form history to prove the truthfulness of my religion.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem your "logic" is strange and others like +khalifhudeen mcclure have also noticed this. I'm still looking for answers to the questions I've raised about websites you wanted me to look at:

-—If Jim Walker is right about rejecting such things as Jesus’ miracles, then the Quran is also wrong. Please explain why if there was no historical “presence of any Jesus of Nazareth,” then the Quran is still true.
—The nobeliefs website you referenced also has articles about “THE PROBLEMS WITH ISLAM”: http://www.nobeliefs.com/islam.htm Is this reputable source you sent me also reputable for rejecting Islam? If not, why not? Please explain your “logic.”
—Is it your belief that it was only the Apostle Paul who taught Jesus' death on the cross? If not, please clarify what you stated previously.
—Do you agree with what Piero Scaruffi historical assessment about the Quran?
“The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed. To make sure that his version of the facts would never be contested, Uthman had all other scriptures burned in Medina. Anyone who questioned the authenticity of Uthman's Quran was persecuted and probably did not survive to tell his story. Islam as it is today is the result of this corrupt dictator's actions, of an enemy of Mohammed.” Is this historically irrelevant to you? Is to acceptable for Muslims to believe this historical assessment? If not, why not?
—Dr. if you accept the arguments of the “scholars” and sources you sent to me as they refer to Christianity, then what does this do for the Quran and Muslim belief in Jesus?
—Is the Muslim belief that Jesus did not die on the cross a belief about what happened in history? If so,what is your historical evidence that falls within the time of Jesus? Furthermore, please give your historical evidence for Muhammad’s claim that Jesus did not die on the cross because according to the reputable historian you cited: Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.

I understand that you believe the Quran is a "sign of Allah." But in explaining why you are going to have to appeal to history as the scholar you have referenced, Piero Scaruffi, makes clear. Furthermore, the Quran discusses historical persons like Jesus. Is history therefore irrelevant since Jesus lived in history? Would it not matter to you if Jesus never lived in history?

History is a criteria to judge whether or not something happened in the world we live in. Christianity makes a historical claim that Jesus died on the cross. Islam denies this. Therefore, history is certainly a relevant criteria to judge between Christianity and Islam.

Dr. It almost sounds like you don't think that history is a legitimate criterion to judge the truthfulness of a religion and its claims about what happened in the past. What other criteria would you suggest?

If you're going to bring up previous discussions—where you also left many questions unanswered—then I did give historical evidence for the Virgin Birth of Jesus. You can go back to this previous discussion where you will find questions I raised and you left unanswered about whether you believe the Virgin Birth was a historical event.
 
Aaron - Your understanding is wrong. I do not endorse what historians say. it is you who is fond of judging the truthfulness of religion on basis of history. Yes, I do not consider history as criteria to judge religion. I believe Quran because it is a miracle and no one has met the challenges given by Quran. Authenticity of Bible regarding historical events is questionable. Instead of asking me to give historical evidences first critically analyze the evidence given in Bible.
Regarding virgin birth, you did not give any historical evidence rather you gave evidence from Bible to support Jewish point of view.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem - the Quran makes historical statements, one of which leads Muslims to reject the event of Jesus’ death on the cross. If Jesus died on the cross, then Islam is untrue. If Jesus did not die on the cross, then Christianity is untrue. History is therefore an important criterion for judging the differing truth claims of Christianity and Islam. If you disagree with this, please explain why.

I believe that history is common ground. God created us and the world we live. The God Who created us and the world also works in it (history). History matters because events that happen in history are true for everyone.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the Quran has much to say about events of the past and has a deep sense of history. The importance of history to Islam is seen from the simple fact that Muslim beliefs about Muhammad is a belief about history. Would the Quran be true if Muhammad did not exist in history? Your beliefs about the Quran’s miraculous preservation from the time of Muhammad to our day is a belief about and an interpretation of history. Therefore, please explain to me where history fits into your beliefs as a Muslim.

Furthermore, the Quran makes statements that have to do with history such as Jesus’ existence and Jesus doing miracles. Would the Quran be true if Jesus did not ever historically do miracles as the “reputable” Jim Walker argued? Would the Quran be true if Jesus did not historically exist as one of the websites you sent suggests? Dr., you say that you “do not endorse what historians say,” but how would you argue against the “reputable non-Islamic historians” you sent me who, if right, undermine Islam’s teaching about Jesus?

This is why I don’t understand your “logic.” It seems to me that if Jim Walker is right about Jesus not doing miracles, then the Quran would also be wrong. If there was historically no “presence of any Jesus of Nazareth,” then you’ve undermined Islam. It therefore makes little sense to me that in arguing against the historicity of Jesus’ death on the cross that you are trying to undermine the historicity of Jesus’ existence, miracles, Virgin Birth, etc. This is why I’m saying your cure is worse than the disease.

You say, “Authenticity of Bible regarding historical events is questionable.” But if this is true for the Bible, then historical events mentioned in the Quran (Jesus’ existence, miracles, Virgin Birth, etc.) are also questionable, right?

As for the Virgin Birth of Jesus, I believe this was an historical event. I explained to you before that this event was prophesied by Isaiah and that the fulfillment of this prophecy was recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. As I explained to you previously: Mary was still alive after Jesus’ resurrection, and she would have been an important source/witness to the Virgin Birth. Do you believe the Virgin Birth of Jesus was an historical event? If so, do you have any historical reasons for this belief?

—Is it your belief that it was only the Apostle Paul who taught Jesus' death on the cross? If not, please clarify what you stated previously.
 
As Muslim, I judge history on basis of Quran not otherwise. You are fond of using history as yard stick to judge truthfulness of history. I do not care what historians say about Quran rather I care about what Quran tells about history.
You failed to bring any independent historical evidence to prove the Biblical claim of virgin birth. You have only given quotes from Bible and your own assumptions which are not INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL PROOF of truthfulness of Bible. On the other hand, E.P Young's statement quoted by you goes against you, doesn't it?
My simple logic is that if you believe that Quran is not word of GOD then take up the challenges given in Quran.
Bible is questionable because of what you say about Bible yourself that 97% is correct, there are things like Falsification test which are fabrications, there are big differences in Gospels and Gospels were written by people not eye witness of what happened to Jesus. What historians say about Bible is even worst than this.
Do not worry about my cure, most psychiatric patients think that the doctor is not right in calling them psychiatric patients and treating them in cruel manner but the truth is that doctor only wants to cure the patient and not harm him.
I think Paul is the one who is true founder of present day Christianity and this view is also shared by others like Micheal Hart.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem - Can you tell me more about Michael Hart? Is he another "reputable" authority like Jim Walker and Piero Scaruffi?
 
+Usman Khalid and +Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem where does this Michael Hart say that Paul founded Christianity? Is this the same Michael Hart that Deedat quotes at the beginning of his Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction which is loaded with half-truths and untruths?
 
Read the following written by M. Hart about Paul:


Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, no fewer
than fourteen are attributed to Paul. Even though modern
scholars believe that four or five of those books were actually written by other people, it is clear that Paul is the most important single author of the New Testament.
Paul's influence on Christian theology has been incalculable. His ideas include the following:
Jesus was not merely an inspired human prophet, but was actually divine.
Christ died for our sins, and his suffering can redeem us. Man cannot achieve salvation by attempting to conform to biblical injunctions, but only by accepting Christ; conversely, if one accepts Christ, his sins will be forgiven.
Paul also enunciated the doctrine of original sin (see Romans 5:12-19).

Since obedience to the law alone cannot provide salvation,
Paul insisted that there was no need for converts to Christianity to accept Jewish dietary restrictions, or to conform to the rituals of the Mosaic Code, or even to be circumcised.
"Several of the other early Christian leaders disagreed strongly with Paul on this point," and if their views had prevailed, it seems doubtful that Christianity would have spread so rapidly throughout the Roman Empire.


" Paul, more than any other man, was responsible for the
transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect into a world
religion." His central ideas of the divinity of Christ and of
justification by faith alone have remained basic to Christian
thought throughout all the intervening centuries. All subsequent Christian theologians, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, have been profoundly influenced by his writings.
Indeed, the influence of Paul's ideas has been so great that some scholars have claimed that he, rather than Jesus, should be regarded as the principal founder of the Christian religion.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem - How should a non-Muslim judge the historical statements made in the Quran? Simply by believing the Quran is the word of God and disregarding history and historians? Is this rational?

You say that you “do not endorse what historians say” and that you “do not care what historians say about Quran,” but how would you argue against the “reputable non-Islamic historians” you sent me who, if right, undermine Islam’s teaching about Jesus? Just by quoting the Quran? This is circular reasoning.

How would you argue against the Piero Scaruffi who argues from history that “The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed…” Simply quoting the Quran doesn’t work because the Quran was compiled after Muhammad’s death.

The reason I care about history is because history is a rational form of knowledge. History is also important to me because I believe in God, and that He works in the world He created. Therefore, I believe that dismissing history—in our case, the historical event of Jesus’ death on the cross—is both irrational_and _ungodly.

The challenge of the Quran—to produce a sura like it—is not justification for dismissing other historians or for believing the Quran is the word of God. It does not logically follow that everything the Quran says about history is true because the collaboration of mankind and jinns allegedly can’t produce the like thereof (Quran 2:23; 17:88).

Furthermore—I’ve asked you before, but you never answered—how well do you know classical Arabic? I don’t know classical Arabic. Therefore I could not judge whether somebody has succeeded in this challenge; although, I know some have tried: http://suralikeit.com

There are several suras presented at suralikeit.com and I’m not asking you to evaluate every single one. However, I would like to know your judgment of Surat Al-Hayat. Was the challenge of the Quran successfully met? If not, why not.

There are problems with the challenge of the Quran: who is to adjudicate whether or not the challenge was met? Can non-Muslims decide? How can non-Arabic speakers like myself—and the majority of the world—know whether or not the challenge was met successfully?

Dr. - as for the psychotic patient: the question is who believes in reality and who does not. That's one reason why you should stand with me on the common ground of history. What happens in history is true for everyone. What happens only in someone's head is not true for everyone. Serious problems can arise when a person’s beliefs about the world don’t correspond to the real world.

The story is told of a certain psychiatric patient who kept insisting that he was dead. Doctors tried and tried to persuade him that he was alive and not dead with little success. Finally, they decided to prove this by explaining to him scientifically that dead people don’t bleed, only living people. After observing autopsies, hearing explanations of how the circulatory system works, and reading medical textbooks, the psychiatric patient finally confessed, “All right, I guess only living people bleed.”

As soon as the patient admitted this truth, one of the doctors whipped out a pin and plunged it into the psychiatric patient’s veins. The doctors started shouting, “You’re bleeding. You’re bleeding! What does that mean?”


The psychiatric patient looked at his bleeding arm and exclaimed, “DEAD PEOPLE REALLY DO BLEED!”

In the psychiatric patient’s mind, he was DEAD. But what was in his mind didn’t at all correspond to reality.

Islam has a similar problem. Its claim that Jesus did not die on the cross does not correspond to reality. It doesn’t correspond to history. Another lesson from this psychiatric patient’s story is that “if you hold unsound presuppositions with sufficient tenacity, facts will make no difference to you at all.” That’s where you are at: facts make no difference to you which you are beginning to admit, “I do not care what historians say about Quran”. This is not logical. It is eternally dangerous.

As for independent historical proof of the Virgin Birth, I’ve given a few sources: the prophet Isaiah, Mary; and the recorded accounts in Matthew and Luke. You should understand that Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke are “independent” books that are part of the larger book, the Bible. There’s also the fact that Joseph married Mary when she was pregnant with Jesus. However, the nature of the Virgin Conception/Birth is such that not many witnesses would have been present when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb (e.g. we would not expect Roman testimony to this event, etc.). What more do I need to convince you, a Muslim, of Jesus’ Virgin Conception? Would you accept the Quran as independent proof? (•‿•)

Other statements you’ve made indicate you have not read me carefully such as the quotation I gave from E.J. Young. What he writes does not deny or undermine the historicity of Jesus’ Virgin Birth. Rather, the quote I sent you had to do with interpreting the Hebrew word “alma” in Isaiah 7:14. Nor did you read me carefully because I never said that 97% of the Bible is correct.

Dr. and +Usman Khalid, thank you for sending references from Michael Hart.

It’s one thing to say Paul “is the true founder of present day Christianity” as the Dr. asserted (leaving Jesus out). It’s another thing to say that Paul was significant in the development of Christianity. Michael Hart believes Jesus and not just Paul is important to the founding/development of Christianity. Michael Hart makes clear that without Jesus, there would be no Christianity.
Furthermore—to my knowledge—Michael Hart does not say anything like Dr. Shoaib who asserted, “The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said who was not one of the twelve and candidly admits that he never met Jesus in person.”


You still haven’t answered other questions:

— Would the Quran be true if Muhammad did not exist in history?
— Your beliefs about the Quran’s miraculous preservation from the time of Muhammad/Uthman to our day is a belief about and an interpretation of history. Therefore, please explain to me where history fits into your beliefs as a Muslim about the compilation of the Quran.
—Please justify the assertion you made: “The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said who was not one of the twelve and candidly admits that he never met Jesus in person.”

Best Regards,
Aaron
 
1. Would the Quran be true if Muhammad did not exist in history?
Ans. Quran has mentioned the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings be upon him) several times. Since I judge history according to Quran, so if any historian tries to tell that Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings be upon him) did not exist, he or she is a liar.

2. Please explain to me where history fits into your beliefs as a Muslim about the compilation of the Quran.
Ans. I believe history is true wherever it is in harmony with Quran. Where history differs with Quran, I uphold the opinion of Quran.

3. “The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said who was not one of the twelve and candidly admits that he never met Jesus in person.”
Ans. The source of this statement is given above.

4. "True founder of present day Christianity"
a. Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, no fewer than fourteen are attributed to Paul. How many are authored by Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him)? None!
b. Read the points about influence of Paul on Christen theology. What you follow has been attributed to Paul by M. Hart not Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him).

5. a. As for independent historical proof of the Virgin Birth, I’ve given a few sources: the prophet Isaiah, Mary; and the recorded accounts in Matthew and Luke. You should understand that Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke are “independent” books that are part of the larger book, the Bible.
Ans. Are you joking? These Christen scriptures are you "independent historical evidences"? I believe that Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him) had a virgin birth because Quran says so, not because some historian has said so. Do you believe in virgin birth because historians say so?

6. “DEAD PEOPLE REALLY DO BLEED!”
Ans. If you could apply it to Bible, you will draw a conclusion similar to Yousaf Estes, Abdur Raheem Green, Bilal Philips, Evan Joshua and many more.

7. I don’t know classical Arabic. Therefore I could not judge whether somebody has succeeded in this challenge; although, I know some have tried: http://suralikeit.com
Ans. I have seen this before. Anything written in Arabic is not equal to Quran.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html

8. What independent historical proof do you have about crucifixion of Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him)?

Regards!
 
Dr. –Your argumentation is circular: If the Quran and history contradict, then it is circular to argue that history must automatically be wrong because the Quran is true. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

Muhammad did not exist because the Quran says he existed. Muhammad existed because he lived some 1,400 years ago. To be sure, the Quran is historic evidence of Muhammad’s existence. Nevertheless, if there was no Quran, Muhammad would still have existed.

Likewise, Jesus did not exist in history because the Quran says He existed. Jesus existed in history regardless of the Quran.

I’m willing to give historical arguments to show that the biblical claim regarding Jesus’ death on the cross actually happened in history. You dismiss my argument because your “beliefs are not based on history” and the “Quran says so.” Then you turn around and give historical arguments that, if true, would undermine both the Bible and the Quran. This is a strange kind of “logic”; in fact, it’s not logical but circular.


#3 Where does Scaruffi say, “The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said”?” Would you please provide the quote?

You wrote that you “judge history according to Quran”, and “believe history is true wherever it is in harmony with the Quran.” The Quran was compiled after Muhammad’s death and, to my knowledge, does not give explanation as to how or who compiled it. Therefore: How would you argue against Piero Scaruffi who argues from history that “The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed…?”

#4 — I agree with Michael Hart that Paul was influential in the development of Christianity. But contrary to what you wrote above, Michael Hart makes clear that without Jesus, there would be no Christianity. As I said above, “It’s one thing to say Paul is the true founder of present day Christianity as you previously asserted leaving Jesus out. It’s another thing to say that Paul was significant in the development of Christianity.

Even if Paul were taken out of the equation, it’s clear that the followers of Jesus believed He died on the cross. All you need to do is read the Gospels, the letters of Peter, and/or John.

#5 — You wrote, “I believe that Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him) had a virgin birth because Quran says so, not because some historian has said so.”


Historical events are true because they happened, not because the “Quran says so.” The Virgin Birth isn’t true because the Quran says so, but because it happened in history. Jesus did not have a Virgin Birth because some historian said so. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary because it happened in history.
Since the Virgin Birth of Jesus was an event in history, then it is reasonable to look for historical evidence—even in an event as unique as this.

The same is true for Jesus’ death on the cross. I don’t believe Jesus died on the cross because some historian says so. Rather, I—and other historians—believe Jesus died on the cross because it was an historical event that happened almost 2,000 years ago.

Moving beyond the Virgin Birth of Jesus to other alleged miracles of Jesus in the Quran. Muslims believe God made a small river run under Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth so she could drink. Muslims believe Mary gave birth under a palm tree and a voice (Jesus?) spoke to her, “Be not grieved.” Muslims believe Jesus spoke as an infant (Quran 19:30-33). If these events are true, then they are true because they happened in history, not because the “Quran says so.” So the question that needs to be answered is whether you have solid historical grounding for believing these historical claims about Mary and Jesus? Again, my point is that historical events are true because they happened, not because the “Quran says so.”

#6 Dr. as I pointed out with your psychotic patient example: the question is who believes in reality and who does not. If the Quran denies history (i.e. Jesus’ death on the cross), then appealing to other Muslims who hold this irrational view is like a psychotic patient appealing to other psychotic patients who now believe the same irrational things.

Islam’s denial of Jesus’ death on the cross does not correspond to reality; it doesn’t correspond to history.

Historical ground should be common ground because it is rational ground.

#7 It is fallacious to argue that the Quran is true because the Quran says it is true. Now, the question is whether the Quran is true because it is inimitable.

The challenge of the Quran is not justification for dismissing other historians or for believing the Quran is the word of God. It does not logically follow that everything the Quran says about history is true because the collaboration of mankind and jinns allegedly can’t produce the like thereof (Quran 2:23; 17:88).


Dr. This is the third time I’ve asked—fourth if you include previous posts—*how well do you know classical Arabic?*

It’s an important question because if you aren’t fluent in classical Arabic, then how can you to decide upon the challenge of the Quran? Is this why you have avoided answering the question?

Others who are capable in classical Arabic have taken up the challenge, and this is why I asked you specifically about Surat Al-Hayat.

You sent me a link, but I did not see any specific mention of Surat Al-Hayat.


Again, my question to you is: I would like to know your judgment of Surat Al-Hayat. http://suralikeit.com/

Other questions you did not answer about the challenge of the Quran: Who is to adjudicate whether or not the challenge was met? Can non-Muslims decide? How can non-Arabic speakers like myself—and the majority of the world—know whether or not the challenge was met successfully (Quranic Arabic is not common ground)?

As for the quotes from scholars you sent about the inimitability of the Quran: this is a two way street. Some scholars who know classical Arabic have a negative assessment of the Quran.
See footnote #9 at:
http://www.bible-quran.com/religious-beliefs/what-every-christian-should-know-about-the-quran/

Dr., you wrote earlier against me saying, “You may bring many facts from history because you are a historian but he would only accept what, in his view, the Bible says. Logic will not work with him but I would still encourage you to quote the historical facts for those who want to listen to the truth.” Based on our current discussion I think you have described yourself. (•‿•)

#8 I’ve already referred you to my answer to this at: http://www.bible-quran.com/book/jesus-death-cross/, and I’ve asked you follow up questions: (a) What is your early historical evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross and that what really happened is asserted in Quran 4:157-158?.; (b) If you think the confused and convoluted Islamic position about Jesus and the cross is the true and historical one, then historical reasons need to be given. You need to historically explain how and why the Christian, Jewish, and non-Christian version of the crucifixion is the historical record and not the Muslim account.
 
I had various personal and professional commitments due to which I could not respond earlier.

Your argumentation is circular: If the Quran and history contradict, then it is circular to argue that history must automatically be wrong because the Quran is true. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Ans. Where historians disagree with Bible, whom do you consider true? What are your “independent historical reasons” to disagree with the “Historical Jesus” and “Christ myth theory”?

I’m willing to give historical arguments to show that the biblical claim regarding Jesus’ death on the cross actually happened in history.
Ans. Ok, but the evidence should not comprise of religious books and should be “independent proof”.

How would you argue against Piero Scaruffi who argues from history that “The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed…?”
Ans. I have already discussed this issue in detail.

I agree with Michael Hart that Paul was influential in the development of Christianity. But contrary to what you wrote above, Michael Hart makes clear that without Jesus, there would be no Christianity.
Ans. You should also agree with Mr. Hart that Prophet Muhammad (Allah’s blessings be upon him) was the greatest man in human history. Also read carefully to whom Mr. Hart has attributed the beliefs and books of New Testaments of modern Christens, Paul or Jesus (Allah’s blessings be upon him)?

Since the Virgin Birth of Jesus was an event in history, then it is reasonable to look for historical evidence—even in an event as unique as this.
Ans. Then keep looking for the “independent historical evidence” and do share when you find one.

So the question that needs to be answered is whether you have solid historical grounding for believing these historical claims about Mary and Jesus? Again, my point is that historical events are true because they happened, not because the “Quran says so.”
Ans. Jews have a very different point of view about Mary and Jesus. Can you bring any “independent historical evidence” other than religious scriptures to prove that their claim is false?

It’s an important question because if you aren’t fluent in classical Arabic, then how can you to decide upon the challenge of the Quran?
Ans. By the comments of those who are not only fluent but also learned scholars of Arabic and Quran.

“You may bring many facts from history because you are a historian but he would only accept what, in his view, the Bible says. Logic will not work with him but I would still encourage you to quote the historical facts for those who want to listen to the truth.”
Ans. Ask Sandra Ibrahim AbdElgalil whether I am correct about you or not?

You need to historically explain how and why the Christian, Jewish, and non-Christian version of the crucifixion is the historical record and not the Muslim account.
Ans. You say that a murder was committed so the onus lies on you to bring the proof. The proof that your book presents is absurd as described by Ahmad Deedat.
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem - Since you did not give a direct response to my observations that your argumentation is circular, I’ll assume that you agree with me.

I believe that religious books (e.g. Gospels) can serve as evidence of something that happened in history. If there was no historical person named Jesus that lived in history then how do you explain the books of the New Testament? The fact that there is a religion that follows Jesus is evidence for the historical person, Jesus. There's non-Christian sources such as those from Judaism, Josephus, and Tacitus. There's evidence from Christian writings outside the Bible such as Papias and Ignatius of Antioch. The fact that Muslims believe Jesus lived in history is also—albeit late—evidence, etc. In fact, I’ve even said that the Quran is evidence that Muhammad was an historical figure. If you disagree, you’ll need to explain to me why. Furthermore, if this does not answer your question then it would be helpful if you defined what you meant by "independent historical reasons?”

I looked over our conversation and did not find any detailed discussion or specific answers to my questions about Piero Scaruffi. My questions remain:
(a) Where does Scaruffi say, “The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said”?” Would you please provide the quote?
(b) How would you argue against the Piero Scaruffi who argues from history that “The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed…” Simply quoting the Quran [i.e. using circular reasoning] doesn’t work because the Quran was compiled after Muhammad’s death.

I could be mistaken, but I don’t think that Michael Hart believes Muhammad was the “greatest man in history.” There’s a difference between the meaning of “influential” and “great.” Nevertheless, you should be aware that Michael Hart wrote a sequel to the above book you’ve been quoting called A View from the Year 3000. It’s a futuristic book; imaginatively written in the year 3000 wherein Michael Hart speculates as to which historical figures will be important 1,000 years from now. Hart ranks Muhammad’s historical importance at #9.
http://www.bible-quran.com/ahmed-deedat-crucifixion-or-cruci-fiction/

As for the Virgin Birth of Jesus: Do the Jews you are referring to have “independent historical evidence” that Mary was not a Virgin when Jesus was conceived? If so, please provide the evidence that you find convincing which, if true, would make Mary an adulterer.

Why doesn't the 1st century Jewish evidence I've given not count? You’ll have to explain to my why “the evidence should not comprise of religious books and should be “independent proof”.”

You still haven’t explained to me why a rejection of the historical event of Jesus’ virgin conception would not also undermined Muslim beliefs about Mary. Do you believe the Virgin Conception of Jesus was an event in history? Do you have any of the “independent proof” for this that you are asking me for? It seems that you are holding me to a different standard.

You also left the following unanswered:
Muslims believe God made a small river run under Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth so she could drink. Muslims believe Mary gave birth under a palm tree and a voice (Jesus?) spoke to her, “Be not grieved.” Muslims believe Jesus spoke as an infant (Quran 19:30-33). If these events are true, then they are true because they happened in history, not because the “Quran says so.” So the question that needs to be answered is whether you have solid historical grounding for believing these historical claims about Mary and Jesus? Again, my point is that historical events are true because they happened, not because the “Quran says so.”

As for the challenge of the Quran, there’s a lot from my previous post you did not answer.

This is the fifth time I’ve asked a simply question that you still have not answered: how well do you know classical Arabic? Please explain your judgment of Surat Al-Hayat. http://suralikeit.com/

Dr. it’s hard for me to understand why you believe the Quran is inimitable, if you—or countless millions of Muslims—do not speak classical Arabic fluently. Some “experts” say it is inimitable. But others disagree. It’s a subjective claim that cannot be judged by the majority of people in the world because they don’t objectively know classical Arabic.

Furthermore, you haven’t answered who is to adjudicate whether or not the challenge was met? Can non-Muslims decide?

The evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross has been given to you more than once along with follow-up questions about Deedat which you have not answered.

Best Regards,
Aaron
 
1. I believe that religious books (e.g. Gospels) can serve as evidence of something that happened in history.
Ans. Circular argument :-)

2. Furthermore, if this does not answer your question then it would be helpful if you defined what you meant by "independent historical reasons?”
Ans. To judge whether historical events quoted in Bible are true or not, you are providing quotes from the scripture itself. I would like to see a credible proof other than Bible or people motivated by Bible.

3. As for the Virgin Birth of Jesus: Do the Jews you are referring to have “independent historical evidence” that Mary was not a Virgin when Jesus was conceived?
Ans. One does not need to give the proof of how a baby is conceived if the mother is unmarried. It happens in your Christen dominated country too often. Proof of the unusual way of conception is required. So, what is your proof to prove the Biblical claim right?
I believe in Virgin birth of Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him) because God has said so. But you need historical proofs to believe in what God has said, so keep looking for the proof of virgin birth, Pastor :-)

4. So the question that needs to be answered is whether you have solid historical grounding for believing these historical claims about Mary and Jesus? Again, my point is that historical events are true because they happened, not because the “Quran says so.”
Ans. I think either you do not understand or you do not want to understand. Did I ever claim that these events are true because I have a historical proof? I have said earlier and I say again, I believe these events to be true because God has said so as written in Quran. Besides let me repeat your question which you have asked:
Do the Christens have an “independent historical evidence” that these claims are false?
(You should judge with the same criteria? And look how absurd is your criteria!)

5. Please explain your judgment of Surat Al-Hayat. http://suralikeit.com/
Ans. First you explain that how this evidence put forward by you intimidates the Quran specially when you do not know the classical Arabic.

6. I looked over our conversation and did not find any detailed discussion or specific answers to my questions about Piero Scaruffi. My questions remain:
(a) Where does Scaruffi say, “The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said”?” Would you please provide the quote?
(b) How would you argue against the Piero Scaruffi who argues from history that “The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed…” Simply quoting the Quran [i.e. using circular reasoning] doesn’t work because the Quran was compiled after Muhammad’s death.
Ans.
(a) See the link I had quoted earlier
(b) See the earlier discussion on Tahriff in Bible or Quran.
7. The evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross has been given to you more than once along with follow-up questions about Deedat which you have not answered.
Ans. The evidenceyou have given are not independent proofs. You even fail to convince that how the "hearsay" evidence given in your Bible is a credible evidence?
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem -
#1 Using religious sources/books is not, in and of itself, circular reasoning. Dr., learn what a circular argument is, then go back and read why I have been pointing out that your argumentation is circular.

#2 The kind of evidence/proof you are asking for won’t help you since your argumentation is circular. You’ve already admitted that your “beliefs are not based on history.” The problem with circular reasoning is that you can’t reason with people who argue in circles.

#3 Your evidence for Jesus’ Virgin Birth—“God has said so”—is, by itself, circular.

#4 Your answer here is further evidence of your circular reasoning, “I believe these events to be true because God has said so as written in Quran."

#5 This is the SIXTH time I've asked a simply question that you still have not answered: how well do you know classical Arabic? It’s hard for me to understand why you believe the Quran is inimitable, if you—or countless millions of Muslims—do not speak classical Arabic fluently. If you don’t speak classical Arabic fluently, then your circular argumentation—“God said so”—makes even less sense.

It is problematic to use classical Arabic as a criterion to judge whether or not the Quran is a miracle from God because classical Arabic is not common ground for all humanity. Non-Arabic speakers—Muslim and non-Muslim—are left to believe someone else’s interpretation of the Arabic Quran since they do not know what the Arabic Quran actually says. This means non-Arabic speakers are left to believe in man’s fallible word/interpretation and not God’s Word.

Along with not answering my questions you’re now asking me a new question to explain how Surat Al-Hayat “intimidates the Quran”. Is this part of the Quran’s challenge—that I must also give you the explanation you are asking for? Or are you moving the goalpost by adding a new stipulation? Or are you just trying to evade having to answer my questions?

I’ve been forthright and have admitted that I don’t speak classical Arabic; I’m dependent on other Arabic speakers to determine whether or not this challenge has been met. With this background, I've come across a website devoted to answering the challenge of the Quran: . http://suralikeit.com/. I’d like your assessment of Surat Al-Hayat as to whether the challenge has been met. I’d also like answers to the other related questions I asked about the inimitability of the Quran in my previous post.

#6
(a) As I explained above, the answer to my question is not in the link you sent me.
(b) Neither did our earlier discussion answer these questions specifically.

My questions remain:
(i) Where does Scaruffi say, “The crucifixion story of Jesus is based on what Paul said”?” Would you please provide the quote?
(ii) How would you argue against the Piero Scaruffi who argues from history that “The Quran was therefore a book put together by order of the most corrupt of the early caliphs and an enemy of Mohammed…” Simply quoting the Quran [i.e. using circular reasoning] doesn’t work because the Quran was compiled after Muhammad’s death.

#7 I’ve cited non-Christian sources already. However, do “independent proofs” really matter to you? It seems they don’t because you’ve previously admitted your “beliefs are not based on history” and that you “do not endorse what historians say.”

Furthermore, some of the questions I've raised about Deedat have nothing to do with “independent proofs” such as my previous question: “Deedat argues that Jesus was placed on the cross but only swooned. This isn't true to the Bible. Is it true to the Quran? Did Deedat try refuting Christianity with arguments that also contradict the Quran?”

Best Regards,
Aaron
 
+Dr Shoaib Bin Aleem - I appreciate the dialogue we’ve had for the last several months in this and other posts. One of the things I have come to appreciate from our conversation is how important the alleged inimitability of the Quran is for Muslims (Quran 2:23; 17:88).

Back in February you suggested we “find some common grounds…”:
"If you want any Muslim to accept your concept of God, you got to give him an arguments from something both Muslims and Christens agree on like simple logic, scientific proof etc. What you call God's work in history is called deliberate human corruption by us and what we call God's word is called human corruption by you. This will take us no where. So, better find some common grounds first to build the argument positively."
https://plus.google.com/113295341642895753019/posts/2U5Vjppsg1g

I agree that common ground is important for dialogue. My proposed common ground has been God's work in history:
"I suggest the common ground we start with is the ground all humanity stands on - this world God created. That's one of the reasons I emphasize throughout the book the importance of Christianity being a religion rooted in what God has done in history. History is common ground we all stand on."
https://plus.google.com/113295341642895753019/posts/2U5Vjppsg1g

Regrettably, we’ve been talking past one another because I keep affirming the importance of history, and you do not:
"Aaron - Your understanding is wrong. I do not endorse what historians say. it is you who is fond of judging the truthfulness of religion on basis of history. Yes, I do not consider history as criteria to judge religion. I believe Quran because it is a miracle and no one has met the challenges given by Quran. Authenticity of Bible regarding historical events is questionable. Instead of asking me to give historical evidences first critically analyze the evidence given in Bible."

Your rejection of history—and claim that Jesus' death on the cross is some kind of corruption—has relied on circular reasoning (e.g. “God said so”). Circular reasoning is irrational and goes against the common ground of “simple logic” that you previously recommended.

Back in February you suggested common ground and “something both Muslims and Christens agree on.” Yet, you have also been appealing to the alleged inimitability of the Quran, “I believe Quran because it is a miracle and no one has met the challenges given by Quran.” Belief in the alleged inimitability of the Quran requires: fluency in classical Arabic; a blind faith for those not fluent in classical Arabic (trusting what certain others say about the Quran); and subjectivism.

The problems with classical Arabic and the inimitability of the Quran as a criterion for discerning truth are numerous:

(1) Classical Arabic is spoken by a minority of people in the world. In fact, countless millions of Muslims do not speak classical Arabic fluently. This means that the Arabic Quran is not common ground. Ironically, you have not given me answer about your competency in classical Arabic even though I have asked six times.
(2) The challenge of the Quran is subjective. The Quran’s inimitability may be subjectively true for some people, but it is not objectively true for all people. (As I previously noted, not all experts in classical Arabic agree that the Quran is inimitable, and there is a website that has accepted the challenge of the Quran.)
(3) Who is to adjudicate the Quran’s alleged inimitability? Can non-Muslims decide? Can non-Arabic speaking people decide. If non-Arabic speaking people can’t decide, then what does this say about the millions of Muslims in the world—yourself included?—who don’t speak Arabic?
(4) Can non-Arabic speaking Muslims really believe the Arabic Quran? Aren’t non-Arabic speaking Muslims really believing in man’s interpretation of what the Arabic Quran says/means?

I don’t have anything more to discuss at this point because of your rejection of history as a criterion to judge the claims of the Quran and beliefs of Muslims, your circular reasoning, and your commitment to the Quran’s alleged inimitability which cannot serve as common ground.

May God grant His leading and guidance. Thank you for the discussion.

Sincerely,
Aaron
 
Pastor Aaron, you want history to be the common ground but can you tell me:

1. Why should I prefer the history taught by Christens and not the one taught by Muslims or Jews or any one else for that matter?

2. Why should I believe in a history book (Bible) which was written by unknown authors? (Read: Forged by Erhman)

3. Why should I believe in a history book (Bible) which contains falsehood? (Falsification Test as mentioned in your book)

4. Why should I believe in a history book (Bible) which contains obvious contradictions? (As mentioned in your book)

5. Why should I believe in a history book (Bible) whose authors never met Jesus or his disciples and only relied on "hear-say" evidence? (Read: Forged and Misquoting Jesus by Erhman)

6. Why should I believe in a history book (Bible) which has many versions, has been edited time and again with deliberate changes made by the scribes to suite their agenda? (Read: Forged and Misquoting Jesus by Erhman)

7. Why should I judge a history book (Bible) by the passages of the book itself? You should bring a proof to support your history book from outside the book e.g. proof of the virgin birth of Jesus (Allah's blessings be upon him)? (And you have persistently failed to do so)

8. Why should I believe in allegedly divine book (Bible) with numerous scientific errors?
9. As far as the challenge of Quran is concerned, you have said that the challenge is met, so the onus lies on you to explain on what basis do you think so? I quoted you a link earlier about this in which Abdur Raheem Green has explained the nature of the challenge and why it can not be met.

10. There are other challenges in Quran as well like:
a. There are no contradictions in Quran.
b. It has been preserved in its original form.
Besides these,
c. Quran has accurately described a few scientific facts not known at the time of revelation of Quran.
d. There is nothing in Quran which is against established scientific facts.

May Allah guide all of mankind to His true religion, Islam!
Add a comment...