Christians often argue that since the Qur’an is 600 years after Jesus, it is a less reliable witness than the New Testament. How do we respond to this?

Ijaz of Calling Christians writes:

Question:

Christians often argue that since the Qur’an is 600 years after Jesus, it is a less reliable witness than the New Testament. How do we respond to this?

Answer:

Consistency is key here, and the response is quite simple. The Christian accepts the first five books of the Old Testament which are usually attributed to Moses (عليه السلام). Yet, these books contain histories ranging from hundreds of years to thousands of years before Moses (عليه السلام) is alleged to have written them. Some Christians consider the accounts in Genesis 1 regarding the creation of the universe to be a historical account. Others consider it to be a phenomenological rendition of the creation of the universe. Either way, Christians accept these accounts as accurate despite the distance (disparity) between the time of Moses (عليه السلام) and that of the creation of the universe.

Consistency is key. Moses (عليه السلام) lived several generations removed from that of Noah (عليه السلام). Yet Christians accept and view the account of Noah (عليه السلام) in the Old Testament as a historical witness. The account of Noah (عليه السلام) is far more than 600 years between himself and Moses (عليه السلام) , yet Christians do not doubt an iota of what the Old Testament says. If we apply the scales of consistency regarding this topic, it would be seen that Christians do not adhere to a sensible methodology for judging what is and what is not historical. Theologically speaking, when it comes to matters of revelation, time is irrelevant. Since God is all knowing, it can be inferred that when He inspired Moses or Muhammad (عليه السلام) to write about the past, then it is assumed that what they wrote was historically accurate.

If missionaries applied the same criteria to their scriptures, they’d have to deny them as well as declare them as being historically inaccurate due to the gaps of time between the events themselves and the later authorship which recounted them. It should also stand to reason that not all accounts closest to an incident would be accurate, and that there exists the possibility of a later writing based on a stronger oral tradition. In such a case, the closest account may be inaccurate but the later writing could be more accurate. In conclusion, this is a very poor argument and it is an excellent example of poor thought processes.

Edit:

This answer is only in response to the argument of time being used, that is, the number of years between Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Jesus (‘alayhi as salam). It isn’t about whether Muslims consider the New Testament historical, or if Christians consider the Qur’an historical, or whether the histories of either writing corresponds with each other. This answer is only in response to the argument by Christians that 600 years is a factor in accepting or rejecting history.

and God knows best.

Via: www.callingchristians.com

Admin – Imtiyaz



Categories: Bible, Christianity, Quran

24 replies

  1. Historians set that criteria for historicity, not christians, so the point is moot.

    Like

    • Christians are inconsistent then

      Like

    • All these poor arguments like Allah has 99 names in comparison to Trinity, Quran is uncreated, Prophet Mohammed does not know Christianity etc. was started by Dr. James White and other Christians will pick them.

      Later Dr. James White himself will realize he is confused and a confused man with regards to his inventions on countering Muslims about his irrational and incorrect religion.

      Dr. James White and his Christian students who pick his counter argument forgets the Quran is here to correct anyone but not to go on defining anyone like the brand of Rastafarian Trinity or the God-Man Sai Baba of Hindus.

      If the Quran had defined a particular Trinity like Dr. James R. Whites Trinity, the Rastafarians and other Christians will say the Quran is not speaking about them. Do not say 3 is the correct correction of all Trinitarians. Jesus is a man and ate food and his mother ate food is the precise correction of all those who worship God-Man like Sai Baba, Ali, Emperor Haile Selaissie etc.

      The conqueror of the lion of the tribe of Judah, the imperial Majesty Jah, Rastafari the ever living according to Rastafarians is God-Man incarnate just like Jesus Christ

      Thanks.

      Like

  2. When you talk about the gutter and sewage of Islam then you are talking about Ijaz Ahmad. He is THE most repulsive Muhammadan next to Yahya Slime. Ijaz not only misrepresented both James White and myself in order to slander Jonathan McLatchie, he even shamelessly and deceptively recorded a conversation with another Christtian unbeknownst to him in order to get him to attack McLatchie, and then produced a video where he edited the statements of that brother in order to make him say what he did not say! He truly exemplifies the vile, wicked, hateful and murdering spirit of his profit: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2016/07/ijaz-ahmad-misrepresents-dr-james-white.html

    Like

    • David Wood correctly notes:

      David Wood said…

      As time goes on, Muslim apologists are becoming more and more desperate. There’s simply no content in the writings and videos of people like Ijaz Ahmad, Yahya Snow, MuslimByChoice, etc. “Apologetics” is the field of giving a reasoned defense of one’s position. But these young apologists are giving up on giving a reasoned defense of anything. Instead, they attack their opponents through misrepresentation and deception. When they do this, they’re candidly admitting that they have no real case to make. People are noticing this.

      July 8, 2016 at 7:34 AM https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=8046074315215363087

      Like

    • lolol oh sammy As time goes on, Chistian apologists are becoming more and more desperate. There’s simply no content in the writings and videos of people like you, Jwhite,etc, etc. “Apologetics” is the field of giving a reasoned defense of one’s position. But apologists like you sammy are giving up on giving a reasoned defense of anything. Instead, you attack your opponents through misrepresentation and deception. When you do this, you candidly admitting you have no real case to make. People are noticing this sammy especially on this blog!..😉.

      Like

    • Is your hatred of Islam shammy such that it leaves you utterly blind to how bad and pathetic your arguments truly are? lolol😁

      Like

  3. Williams, for a person as intelligent as you, you sometimes make me wonder. This is THE most pathetic analogy anyone can come with you, and here’s why. THERE ARE NO SOURCES WHICH PREDATE MOSES’ WRITINGS THAT SPEAK OF NOAH! IN FACT, WE WOULDN’T KNOW OF A NOAH HAD MOSES’ WRITINGS NOT MENTIONED HIM! WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF JESUS WE DO HAVE SOURCES THAT ARE EARLIER AND CLOSER TO HIS TIME THAN THE TIME OF YOUR FALSE PROFIT! THEREFORE, SERIOUS, RESPECTABLE HISTORIANS WOULD NEVER CONSULT THE QURAN IN ORDER TO RECONSTRUCT A LIFE OF JESUS, BUT WOULD GO WITH THE FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. JUST ASK EHRMAN!

    Is your hatred of Christianity such that it leaves you utterly blind to how bad and pathetic these arguments are?

    Like

    • Which makes the analogy even more pertinent!

      From a historical point of view commenting about an event is problematic( although not necessarily irresolvable) when you have early sources that contradict each other. Commenting about event when you are far removed from the source with no early sources at all in your disposal is even worse!

      Like

    • Sorry better constructed sentence !

      Commenting about an event,when you are far removed from the source, is even worse when you have no early sources at your disposal.

      How far from the event is the Old Testament from the “historical commentary” in Genesis?

      Now find a historian, who in principle, would accept that type of information. We are talking about historical criteria here, yes?

      Like

    • And this guy claims to know a thing or two about logic! WhAT makes polytarian a even bigger joke than Ijaz, IS THAT HIS OWN BOOK SPEAKS OF NOAH! Therefore, if “commenting on an event,when you are far removed from the source is even worse when you have no early sources at your disposal,” THEN YOU JUST FURTHER BURIED MUHAMMAD IN HADES SINCE HIS KNOWLEDGE OF NOAH IS BASED OFF WHAT HE HEARD FROM THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS OF HIS DAY, WHO BASED THEIR INFO OFF OF THE GENESIS RECORD! 🙂

      Let me break this down a little further for you since I know it is hard for someone to think rationally after spending so much time kissing a black stone and reciting the Quran. The Quran’s info on Noah comes roughly 2200 years after the information found about Noah in the Torah, which you now called into question. This means that historians wouldn’t just laugh off the Genesis account about Noah, THEY WOULD BE ROLLING ON THE FLOOR TRYING TO STOP THEMSELVES FROM DYING OF LAUGHTER OVER THE QURAN’S RECOUNTING OF NOAH AND THE FLOOD! Man, could you really be any stupider, seriously?

      And sorry, appealing to “revelation” won’t salvage the hole you just created for Muhammad. Nor will trying to shift the burden on me bring your profit back up out of the hole you buried him in, since this was the argument used by your own fellow stone kisser. THEREFORE, both you and him are stuck with this rather stupId and fallacious analogy which now comes back to expose your profit for the fraud that he was.

      OUCH!

      Like

    • @Unitarian, I do believe that point went over his head. I might have to dumb down the derivatives for him.

      Like

    • Well, you can’t dumb it down any more than the Quran and your profit’s sunna since as dumb as his god spoke your profit still couldn’t figure out most of the “revelations” of his lord. To be fair though, your garbage does make your proft look intelligent and makes his “revelation” sound rather coherent.

      Now with that said I would like you to deal with your fellow stone worshiper’s objection seeing that you employed the analogy of Noah. Since there are no contemporary records written from the time of Noah, does this not further expose your Quran as a worthless piece of… since not only would no credible historian bother to consult it to reconstruct a life of the historical Jesus, they would never even imagine accepting it as a credible witness to Noah since to them there isn’t any good reasons to believe in Noah’s historicity?

      Yep two peas in a pod, or should I say two pieces of the same black stone! 😉

      Like

    • @Sam,

      The point again, went over your head. It’s interesting you spend more time insulting me and my faith than defending or preaching your own. You’ve dropped my name and the name of Islam more than Jesus’s at this point. I understand your obsession with me and I’m OK with you insulting me and Islam. It shows the level you operate at:

      “You use your mouth for evil and harness your tongue to deceit.”

      Amen, indeed.

      In all that you’ve said, you’ve invalidated the Bible’s historicity. If, as you say, historians cannot trust the Qur’an’s account of Noah due to the disparity in time, then that line of reasoning also invalidates the Bible’s mythical version.

      Since that’s the case, you’ve proven my argument to be true.

      Thank you and may God continue to use you as a tool for Islam and Taylor Reese.

      Like

  4. So what was that about your knowledge of Greek? 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I dedicate this song to my pal Ijaz! Here’s to ya! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN6MxLYB8hM

    Like

  6. Williams, your affiliation with slime like Ijaz and Yahya will be your own downfall since these guys are a great blessing to Christians: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2016/07/rudolph-boshoff-comments-on-encounter.html

    You need to really disassociate yourself from such sewage.

    Like

    • Shamoun: slime like Ijaz and Yahya will be your own downfall since these guys are a great blessing to Christians

      If Ijaz and Yahya a great blessing to Christians, then shouldn’t Christians support them in their mission? When was the last time you donated to Ijaz or Yahya considering they have been a blessing to you?

      Like

    • Unfortunately Sam,

      I regret to inform you that Rudolph is now backtracking, he’s also made similar comments on Facebook beyond our voice chat, stating specifically that he is in agreement with other Christians that all of them are uncomfortable with what Jonathan said:

      https://callingchristians.com/2016/07/08/calling-jonathan-mclatchie-to-a-higher-standard/

      Here’s also another clip where Rudolph clearly says he wouldn’t have said what Jonathan claimed in that video in Hyde Park:

      There’s over 30 mins of Rudolph expressing the same sentiment several times, usually following each sentiment with stating that Jonathan was flustered, confused and under pressure. So let’s summarise:

      1. He’s uncomfortable with what Jonathan said.
      2. He would not say that God is 1/3 of the Godhead and claims its “not orthodox”.
      3. He would not make the claim that Jonathan made in the video.
      4. Excuses Jonathan by stating he was flustered, confused and under pressure.

      All in all, Jonathan made a mistake, his friends correctly attributed his mistake to being under pressure and the polemic Christian community’s response to this is to focus on Paul, Yahya and myself. Theology is not your concern, it’s donation money. The only reason Rudolph has to put out a video is because he’s put Jonathan in a bad position, and is now trying to explain away Jonathan’s error.

      It’s really all simple, if any of you cared about what you believed in, you’d counsel Jonathan and just have him acknowledge he got flustered under pressure and misspoke. That’s all. No harm done. Instead the Christian polemic community has put relationships over God. You simply, do not care about theology.

      This is why I’ll continue to publish comments from Rudolph where he continues to rebuke what Jonathan said. No amount of backtracking will erase the mistake that Jonathan made.

      Liked by 1 person

    • KMAK, we are supporting him by exposing his filth and slime for all to see the spirit of Islam shining through him. 😉

      Like

  7. Gents I’m closing this thread

    Like

%d bloggers like this: