Daniel Haqiqatjou takes on the Islamic Dilemma
The Islamic Dilemma can be presented in an endless amount of ways but for simplicity, it is reproduced as presented by David Wood in the debate.
- The Quran affirms the inspiration (Surah 3:3), preservation (Surah 6:115, 18:27) and authority (Surah 5:47, 68) of the previous scriptures (i.e. the Torah and the Gospel).
- Christians and Jews either still have those inspired, preserved and authoritative scriptures or they do not have them.
- If they have those inspired, preserved and authoritative scriptures, Islam is false because those scriptures contradict the Quran.
- If they do not have the inspired, preserved and authoritative scriptures then Islam is false because the Quran says they have them.
- The conclusion is that either way, the Quran (and by extension Islam) is false.
Daniel responded by first setting the scene with quotes from modern western scholarship (Especially Bart Ehrman) to the effect the Bible is corrupted, the Torah cannot be reliably traced to Moses and the New Testament text has been changed. He stated that the Islamic dilemma is the Christian’s last ditch effort to salvage some form of credibility for the Bible. In essence the Christian is saying, “My Bible might be corrupt but look! Muslims have to believe in the same Bible too!”.
What Daniel fails to realise here is that this is exactly the dilemma! Even if I were to for simplicity sake grant that Daniel has accurately represented everything he quoted (which if you know anything about Daniel or have watched his debate with Mike Jones of Inspiringphilosophy on child marriage, is highly unlikely) on modern scholarship, all he has achieved here is to join the cacophony of academic voices in calling his Allah and his prophet a fraud! His Allah promised to preserve those scriptures, academia — according to him — has spat on Allah’s face by saying those scriptures have been hopelessly distorted and Daniel says “Yes and Amen!” to that.
Secondly Bart Ehrman himself has on record said the Quran cannot be used as a source to tell us about the life of Jesus. In fact he says he believes Jesus was crucified, dead and buried. He also believes the disciples saw Jesus after His death. So even Bart Ehrman — as well as every scholar Daniel cited — would deem the Quranic accounts of Jesus stand up comedy (See his interview with the Apostate Prophet). If “corruption” of the text is to be defined as any change in the text, then guess what? The Quran itself has been corrupted as there are multiple variants in different versions of the Quran. For example in Surah 1:4, some versions say “Master of the day of judgment” some say “King of the day of judgment”, you can argue that it does not substantially change the meaning (By the way some other variants do but I digress) but that is precisely what textual scholars, including Bart Ehrman, have said about the New Testament! No essential Christian doctrines have been affected by these textual corruptions.
So this approach of trying to emphasize how corrupt the Bible is does not work. If the Bible is corrupt, Allah has failed to preserve his revelation in the gospel and the Quran is false.
Daniel proceeds to make a very stark admission in his opening statement. He says that the Quran has some ambiguous verses which indeed seem to confirm the previous scriptures but thankfully the exegetes have clarified them.
This again is a big slap on the face of Allah. Over and over, Allah says his book is very clear! He even has a Surah called Al-Fussilat (Things explained in detail), if this is so, why in the world do we need hundreds of scholarly opinions (which more often than not do not agree with each other) to tell us what Allah really means when he speaks? And note the backhanded concession Daniel makes. If the Quran is really taken at its word, there is a possibility — at least within its ambiguity — that it really is confirming the previous scriptures. It is the exegetes (who are decades and centuries after the Quran), not Allah or Muhammad, that ultimately resolve this ambiguity.
Daniel then goes ahead to say that the Quran confirms the New Testament in a general sense not every single word in it. To him, what Allah is confirming are the most recurring teachings in the previous scriptures. Two questions though, where exactly is Daniel getting this from? What exegete says the Quran is confirming the previous scriptures only in a general sense? Does Allah not order the people of the gospel to judge by what Allah has revealed in it?
Secondly, going with Daniel’s unjustified interpretation of Quranic confirmation, is there a more recurring teaching in the gospel than the fact that Jesus Christ is the son of God,
“But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
(Matthew 26:63–64)
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
(Mark 1:1)
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest;”
(Luke 1:31–32)
“Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
(John 1:49)
That He died and rose from the dead,
“From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”
(Matthew 16:21)
“And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
(Mark 8:31)
“saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”
(Luke 9:22)
“Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.”
(John 2:19, 21–22)
That His death and resurrection was for sin,
“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
(Matthew 20:28)
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
(Mark 10:45)
“Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
(Luke 24:46–47)
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
(John 3:16–18)
Does the Quran confirm any of these recurring teachings? No! Ergo, the dilemma still stands and the Quran remains false because it contradicts the general and most recurring teachings of the scriptures which it confirms.
Daniel then says the general teachings must appear both in the Torah and the Gospel, which is even more ludicrous and unfounded. But again, I am in a very generous mood.
Going with Daniel’s insane interpretation, the Torah (used as short hand for the whole Old Testament unless where otherwise specified) confirms that the Messiah would be the unique Son of God,
“I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.”
(Psalm 2:7)
And again,
“I will be his Father, and he shall be My son…”
(2 Samuel 7:14)
The Torah also confirms that God is a Father to His people,
“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”
(Exodus 4:22)
And again,
“Do you thus deal with the Lord,
O foolish and unwise people?
Is He not your Father, who bought you?”
(Deuteronomy 32:6)
The Torah also emphasizes that blood is necessary to atone for sin,
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.”
(Leviticus 17:11)
The end of the Torah (in the sense of the first five books) is with the promise that God will make an atonement for both His people (Israel) and the Gentiles,
“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people;
For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
And render vengeance to His adversaries;
He will provide atonement for His land and His people.”
(Deuteronomy 32:43)
Later on, the Messiah is portrayed as being a ransom for Israel and the nations by virtue of his death,
“Just as many were astonished at you,
So His visage was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men;
So shall He sprinkle many nations.”
(Isaiah 52:14–15)
“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.”
(Isaiah 53:10–11)
The recurring themes of the gospels, that God is a Father, Jesus is the unique Son of God, His blood which He shed on the cross in death and His resurrection was as a ransom for sin are all echoed in the Torah and the prophets. Which of these does the Quran affirm? Why is the Quran the odd book out?
In this case, the dilemma still stands for the same reason as earlier.
Daniel then claims the success or failure of the dilemma hinges on the word “confirm”. What does it really mean? Does it mean confirm every word? or in a general sense?
Again, I vehemently disagree with this because Allah and Muhammad confirm the previous scriptures in a lot of ways which do not explicitly use the word “confirm” but going with Daniel, let us look at the word “confirm”.
In Arabic, the word used is “Musadiq”. Now the meaning of the word makes the dilemma even far worse for Daniel. According to the Almaany English Arabic Dictionary, this is what the word (and some variations of it) means;
- certified; authenticated; legalized; verified; ratified; confirmed; endorsed; sanctioned; approved..
- credible; believable; reliable; trustworthy; believed
- acknowledged as true
- that can be believed
There is absolutely no chance in hell Allah means the previous scriptures are only confirmed in a general sense if the word on its own terms is as absolute of an endorsement as one can get. Allah is essentially saying
“You can trust the previous scriptures, I authenticate, certify, legalize, verify, ratify, confirm, endorse, sanction and approve them! They are credible, believable, reliable and trustworthy. The previous scriptures can be believed!”.
But Daniel says Allah is just an idiot who does not know what he is saying, western scholarship and exegetes who came years after are the ones we should really be listening to on this topic.
Daniel also argued based on Surah 3:50 where the Islamic Jesus says,
“And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.”
Daniel’s argument here is that Jesus is confirming the Torah but is still repealing part of the Torah. So the Quran can confirm the previous scriptures but disagree with or correct them. Two issues with this.
First, according to the Torah, a Prophet after Moses was expected and this Prophet was to bring the word of God directly to the people. Even Moses prophesied about this in Deuteronomy 18:18–20 and when that Prophet came, the people were to listen to Him. Again, the Old Testament looked forward to a time when a new kind of covenant will be made between God and His people,
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt…”
(Jeremiah 31:31–32)
So within the context of the previous scriptures, this makes sense. Jesus came with a New covenant just like the Old Covenant said He would. In that sense Jesus is confirming the Torah by bringing the New Covenant to supersede it, just as the Torah said He would. The question then is where in the New Covenant does it say another system is anticipated which would supersede it? There is no such place! On what basis then does the Quran do this?
Second, as David Wood pointed out during the debate, this would be abrogation in Islam where a later verse can overrule a previous verse. This doctrine is based on Surah 2:106. If a later command overruling a previous command means the previous command is corrupt then the Quran is corrupt going by that logic and Islam remains false because now both the Quran and the Bible are corrupt!
Finally, Daniel introduces the Christian Dilemma!
“Jesus said we should do everything the Pharisees say we should do. i.e. Not eat grain on the Sabbath, stone the adulterer but he says we should not do what the Pharisees do, isn’t this a contradiction?”
Again, it is only a contradiction if you cannot read! Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees! They say one thing and then do another. They do not practise what they preach and that precisely is the problem Jesus is getting at! No one in their right mind can read the gospels or even Matthew 23 as a whole and leave with the impression that Jesus is “Musadiqing”(i.e. confirming as used in Arabic) the Pharisees the same way the Quran Musadiqs the Bible!
Secondly, Daniel in the debate had earlier pointed out that the Quran corrects the Bible by for example claiming that Allah does not rest like the God of the Bible does on the seventh day. Then in the next breath, he says Christians really should keep the Sabbath like the Pharisees say. Where do Daniel and the Quran get the concept of “Sabbath” from? Why does the Quran condemn Jews for not keeping the Sabbath? The whole concept of Sabbath comes from God resting on the seventh day so if the Quran and Daniel believe God cannot rest, the Sabbath becomes irrelevant. So Daniel again walks himself and Allah smackdab into the middle of another dilemma!
Third, even if we go with Daniel’s very daft interpretation of Matthew 23 and agree it is indeed the Christian dilemma, the Islamic dilemma has been made worse because the Quran Musadiqs that dilemma! It confirms the Christian dilemma! so there are now dilemmas in two of Allah’s books, the Quran and the Gospel.
In conclusion, this debate was an absolute disaster, not just for Daniel but for Islam as a whole. I am confident beyond doubt that this debate will make thousands of Muslims leave Islam in our lifetime.
Also check out:
