This
review first appeared in FrontPage Magazine here.
Islam
is currently protected from critique. This was not always so. Thomas Jefferson
could declare that Muslims believe "that it was their right and duty to
make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they
could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle
was sure to go to Paradise." John Quincy Adams could acknowledge that Muhammad
"degraded" the female sex and "declared undistinguishing and
exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind."
Winston Churchill could write of Islam, "No stronger retrograde force
exists in the world." Pope Callixtus III could assess Islam as "diabolical."
Such
critique is taboo today. A few days after 9-11, then-president George Bush
declared that "Islam is peace." In February, 2015, after ISIS burned
a Jordanian pilot alive in a cage, President Obama attempted to redirect
outrage towards the Crusades. In 2016, Pope Francis said, "If I speak of
Islamic violence, I should speak of Catholic violence … there is always a small
group of fundamentalists … Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and
when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the
person."
This
no-go-zone surrounding Islam, where all critics are vaporized by ever-vigilant
thought police, was erected and is maintained by a variety of forces. One of
those forces is capital-A Atheism, that is Atheism as a proselytizing belief
system.
Atheists
have long promulgated their unique twist on cultural relativism. In 2005, an Atheist
invented The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The larger point of his project: all
religions are importantly identical; that is, they are all equally ridiculous.
A deity invented out of spaghetti and meatballs has as much depth, truth value
and relevance as any other.
After
atrocities committed in the name of Islam, one encounters Atheists promoting
this relativistic worldview. The flying-spaghetti-monster argument can be
paraphrased thus, "It is racist to express outrage at Islamic atrocity in
any way that indicates that it is different from other atrocities. In America
we have Christian Taliban who are just as oppressive and violent as Muslims. They
blow up abortion clinics. Christians murdered innocents during the Crusades. Singling
out Islam vitiates the larger war against all religion."
In
2006, Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion. Critics pointed
out that Dawkins revealed an abysmal ignorance of Christianity. The Dawkins
camp replied that he didn't need to know such material; it was all
flying-spaghetti-monster grade nonsense. Not so, Dawkins' critics replied. One
may believe that there is no God, but there are certainly such things as
scripture, history, and theology, and to misrepresent these actual facts is to obscure
truths that have an impact on all lives. An excellent example of this public
debate can be read in Terry Eagleton's piece "Lunging,
Flailing, Mispunching" that appeared in the London Review of Books," on October 19, 2006.
In
fact, even to Atheists, the differences between religions matter. They are
reflected in the real world. Look at a map
plotting high sex ratios. Women and girls have a much better chance of living a
full human lifespan if they are born in cultures shaped by the Judeo-Christian
tradition than they do if they are born into Muslim, Hindu, or Confucian
countries. In those lands, females are more likely to die young, or simply to
be aborted before birth.
Too,
"Islam has bloody borders" as well as "bloody innards."
Muslim populations are more likely to be in armed conflict with their neighbors
than non-Muslim populations, according to Samuel
P. Huntington.
American
students who descend from ancestors from countries affected by Confucianism, or
who were actually born in such countries, that is China, Japan, South Korea and
Vietnam, often do better on standardized tests than other students. Jews, never
more than one percent of the world's population, have a vastly disproportionate
share of Nobel Prizes. The Catholic Church is said to be the largest single provider
of social services in the world, and it played a key role in the development of
the university, the hospital, and international law. It doesn't really matter
if Richard Dawkins believes in Jesus or Confucius. Millions of people do, and
those beliefs have an impact in the real world, including an impact on the
lives of Atheists.
It
behooves everyone, Atheist or believer, who wants to understand the daily news
or the presidential race, to understand the difference between Christianity and
Islam. Nabeel Qureshi's August, 2016 book No God But One: A Former Muslim Investigates
the Evidence for Islam and Christianity, published by Zondervan, is a
must-read, even for Atheists. In the simplest and most accessible terms possible,
Qureshi outlines major theological differences between Islam and Christianity. Qureshi's
stated goal, which he meets: "I hope to elucidate two overarching matters
in particular: that the differences between Islam and Christianity have great
implications, and that the evidence of history strongly supports the Christian
claims." Qureshi's conclusion: Christianity can withstand historical
examination and ethical interrogation. Islam cannot – in fact, neither Islam
nor the Quran live up to their own stated criteria for themselves. Further, Muhammad,
as depicted in canonical Muslim sources, is not the man Islamic propaganda
makes him out to be.
Nabeel
Qureshi is a Pakistani-American. He was born to a devout Muslim family. In
college he met David Wood, who challenged his faith. Qureshi described his
conversion to Christianity in his 2014 bestseller, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus. Qureshi is a brilliant and ambitious
man. He holds an MD, two MAs in religious studies, and is pursuing an Oxford
PhD in New Testament studies. On August 30, 2016, Qureshi revealed on Facebook that he has
recently been diagnosed with "advanced stomach cancer." One hopes,
and some of us pray, for his rapid and thorough recovery.
No God But One maintains an excruciatingly polite tone
and a high-school sentence length and vocabulary level. Qureshi is thorough in
his takedown of Islam, but he is never anything but kind. One is aware that
this is a man who lived most of his life as a Muslim, and whose beloved family
members are still Muslims. Those resorting to charges of
"Islamophobia" to silence critique of Islam need to read Qureshi.
Chapters
are a few pages long, limiting themselves to basic questions and answers, with
bold headings guiding the reader. You could read – and understand – this book
in the bathtub or in a crowded subway car. Chapters address topics like the
differences between Muhammad and Jesus, between the Quran and the Bible, and
jihad and the Crusades.
Anyone
reading Qureshi's book will be introduced to facts that reduce the Atheist spaghetti-monster
relativist dogma to shreds. Qureshi points out, and scholars of Christianity
have long known, that the consensus among historians is that there was a real
Jew named Jesus, he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and his followers believed
that they witnessed him alive after his death. One does not have to stray from
historical documents or scholarship to accept these basic tenets of
Christianity.
Muhammad,
Qureshi claims, is another story. There are no records from the early days of
the Arab Conquest, from either Arabs or those they conquered, mentioning a
prophet named Muhammad, a scripture called the Quran, or the word
"Muslim." The description of Mecca in the Quran does not mesh with
historical or geographic realities, and early mosques faced Jerusalem or Petra,
not Mecca. Robert Spencer's 2012 book, Did Muhammad Exist? covers this scholarship.
The
earliest written documents about Jesus date, Qureshi convincingly argues, to
within a decade or so of his death. Christians rapidly copied these documents
and disseminated them throughout the Classical World. We have fragments dating
back to the first half of the second century, and we have thousands of
fragments and copies, more than for any other Ancient document. Gary Habermas
wrote, "The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far
earlier period than other classical works. There are just under 6000 NT
manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so
after its writing." Any wholesale recall and centrally-dictated change to
these documents would have been logistically impossible.
The
earliest biography of Muhammad dates to 140 years after his death, and even
that late book was lost. The extant biography of Muhammad, its author admits,
was bowdlerized to eliminate potentially offensive material. Muslims insist
that the Quran that exists today is exactly the same message that Allah
conveyed to Muhammad. In fact, Qureshi points out, Islam's own history proves
this false. As attested in Muslim sources, the Quran has undergone
alterations right up to the twentieth century.
As a
Muslim child, Qureshi learned that Muhammad was "Al-Insān al-Kāmil,"
the perfect human, worthy of emulation. Muhammad was humble, peaceful, and
kind. Through research of Muslim canonical sources, Qureshi learned that in
fact Muhammad loved and praised war as the highest act (eg Bukhari 4:52:50,
4:52:44,
4:52:72).
He also ordered assassinations, torture, mass murder, and rape of female
captives.
Islam,
Qureshi argues, is based on blind obedience to a deity, Allah, who is not
interested in or capable of either intimacy or love. Christianity, on the other
hand, promises an intimate relationship with a loving Father God. This
difference in valuation of love and power inevitably is reflected in the
societies where Christianity and Islam predominate. "Obedience under the shadow
of threat is hardly obedience at all, but compulsion," he writes.
"Christian obedience," he argues, is "rooted in love."
Muslims
frequently believe that their Allah is loving, but there is no support for this
in the Quran. In an attempt to depict Allah as loving, Qureshi says, Muslims
cite that Allah is closer to a man than his own jugular vein (Quran 50:16).
This is not an expression of intimacy, subsequent verses show, but rather a
warning: Allah knows what bad things man has done, and will punish him when the
time comes. The jugular vein is found in the neck, and the Quran tells
believers to strike at the neck. Allah aims for the same target.
The
Trinity is a very tough topic. Qureshi handles it well. I will not attempt to
recapitulate his argument here. I will say that he does cite quantum physics to
help the reader understand how the Biblical God could conceivably be one entity
made up of three persons: father, son, and holy spirit. Qureshi also uses
linguistic support to argue that the concept of the Trinity is hinted at in the
Old Testament. In historical fact, some Jews did believe in a God of more than
one person; after the rise of Christianity, that understanding was condemned as
heretical in Judaism.
The Quran
promotes a garbled version of the Trinity, insisting that Christians worship
God the father, Jesus, and Mary. Jews, the Quran claims, worship Ezra, an Old
Testament scribe, as God. In fact Jews do not worship Ezra, and Mary has never
been part of the Trinity.
Early
Muslims debated whether or not the Quran was created or eternal. Beginning in
833 AD, during a process called the Mihna, Muslims who believed that the Quran
was eternal were persecuted, imprisoned, and killed. Today most Muslims insist
that the Quran is eternal and uncreated, granting it a status reserved for
gods. This belief contradicts the doctrine that only Allah is god; Muslims
don't seem to care. This reverence for the Quran is not reflected in Muslims'
relationship to it. Most Muslims don't read, refer to, or attempt to understand
the Quran. Its language is opaque to them, and Muslims fear that they may be
clinging to a verse that has been abrogated, or canceled out, a Quranic
doctrine whereby some verses become obsolete, but are retained in the text.
Qureshi
is rather gentle in his critique of the Quran. He writes off its incoherence as
a result of it having been first oral rather than written. That won't wash. The
Iliad and the Odyssey were originally oral, and they are magnificent. Qureshi should
read Eric Havelock's Preface to Plato, an
examination of oral societies. The
oral mind was a different mind, but not inferior. The Quran's incoherence can't
be blamed on orality.
Those
seeking a tougher critique of the Quran will want to read Don Richardson's Secrets of the Koran. Richardson points out that the Quran is
so repetitious that if all its repeated material were removed, it would be 40%
shorter. The Quran is so violent that it contains at least 109 jihad verses;
one of every 55 verses is a jihad verse. One of every eight verses is a threat
of damnation or a graphic description of sadistic tortures in hell for
infidels. By contrast, the Old Testament mentions Hell once in every 774
verses, and Hell is never described with as much lip-smacking sadism as it is
in the Quran.
The Quran
is written in one language; the Bible was written in three languages. The Quran
is the product of a much shorter period of composition than the Bible. The Quran
is approximately 77,000 words long; the Bible is approximately 800,000 words
long. The Quran offers much less elbow room for alternate interpretations than
the Bible. The Quran itself offers no escape from its own demands for violence.
There
is no analog to jihad in the Bible. The advancing Israelites do claim Canaan
through military conquest. That conquest is limited by geography and time. But
the Bible also includes repeated calls for mercy (Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:8) and respect
for the stranger (Exodus 22:21). The Moabite Ruth, and Rahab the Harlot, both
originally non-Jewish outsiders, become heroines. Rabbi Jeffrey
Salkin argues that "righteous Gentiles" are essential to the Old
Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus depicts the ultimate outsider, the Good
Samaritan, as an exemplar of conduct.
The Quran,
in contrast, adjures Muslims to be harsh with non-Muslims and not take them as
friends (66:9, 48:29, 3:28, 5:51, 9:28, etc). The Atheist
flying-spaghetti-monster myth just doesn't work here. The Bible and the Quran
are very different books. They cannot be relativized into sameness.
The Quran
offers garbled versions of the life of Jesus. The Quran appeared at least six
hundred years after Jesus died, over six hundred miles away from his life and
death, and in a language foreign to what Jesus and his apostles spoke. Its
fables about Jesus' life are cribbed from non-Biblical, pop versions – Qureshi
calls them "fan fiction" – that were circulating in the seventh
century. Further, the frequently stated Muslim belief that the Quran contains
secret, advanced, scientific knowledge or mysterious number codes is easily
debunked.
Ironically,
the one miracle Muhammad attributed to himself was the Quran. No one could ever
write a book comparable to the Quran, the Quran says. Christians produced al-Furqan al-Haqq, a book that presents
Biblical teaching in Quranic style. Muslims mistook it for the Quran. It is
convincing enough that it is banned in some countries, and many websites
warn Muslims not to read it. The ease with which a book that is like the Quran
was created disproves the Quran's statement about itself, that no one could
create anything like it.
Qureshi's
treatment of the Crusades irked me. Like many Protestants, he mentions Catholics
only in a negative sense: Catholics, he reports, unlike Protestants, are
similar to Muslims in their view of scripture (298). Qureshi does not cite a
single Catholic source to back up this unfriendly generalization. Qureshi depicts
Pope Urban II as a genocidal maniac. He relativizes Crusaders and jihadis and
repeats, three times in as many pages, the plainly hyperbolic statement that
Crusaders traveled through Muslim blood up to their ankles, knees, or the knees
of their horses. He tosses off a reference to the Spanish Inquisition;
apparently he is unaware that that misrepresented period, often used to malign
Catholics, has been completely redefined by modern scholarship. Good sources on
the topic of the Muslim presence in Spain include Dario Fernandez-Morera's 2016
book The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise
and Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical
Revision. Both Crusaders and
Muslims "committed inexcusable atrocities," Qureshi relativizes. Incorrect,
as Dr. Bill Warner's Jihad v Crusades video demonstrates.
All
quibbles aside, No God But One is a
very accessible and necessary read not just for Christians and Muslims, but for
Atheists, as well.
Danusha
Goska is the author of Save Send Delete
Thank you for your review. I've been looking for a book like this.
ReplyDelete