Sam Shamoun

Dr. Jamal Badawi is considered to be North America's premiere Muslim apologist and spokesperson, having debated and lectured extensively throughout the world at some of the most prestigious universities and institutions. Although a professor of business management at St. Mary's University, Halifax Nova Scotia, Badawi is perhaps best known for his achievements as one of the most capable and knowledgeable Muslim speakers in the world. Badawi is also regarded by Muslims as a scholar of comparative religion and inter-faith dialogue.

It therefore comes as no surprise to discover Badawi producing tracts and articles critiquing the Holy Bible's authority and authenticity, as well as the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is God's unique, divine Son. Due to his Islamic beliefs, Badawi cannot allow for a Jesus that is more than a prophet and hence must therefore interpret the Bible through Muslim lenses, disallowing the possibility of a divine Christ to emerge from its pages.

One such tract is Badawi's Jesus in the Qur'an and the Bible. Throughout this tract, Badawi attempts to discredit Jesus' uniqueness by producing verses from the Old Testament showing other prophets' abilities to perform the same miracles which Christ performed. This would demonstrate, or so Badawi thinks, that to attribute divinity to Jesus due to his unique qualities or miraculous ministry is unnecessary since this would make the other prophets divine as well.

Although Badawi may indeed be a scholar of Islam, he shows himself not qualified to critique the biblical portrait of Jesus since his approach is far from being scholarly or unbiased. The misinterpretation and misquotation of biblical passages is apparent to any serious student of the Bible. Badawi often ignores the context of the verses he cites since when the text is read in relation to the entire passage, the very point he hopes to make is often clearly refuted.

In this paper we will give a concise refutation of just some of Badawi's points, exposing the deliberate mishandling of biblical quotations. From there we will briefly look at Muhammad's career, contrasting it with both the ministries of Christ and of individual Old Testament prophets. This will be done to show that the very method Badawi uses to deny the divine nature of Jesus is the very method which proves that either Muhammad was not a prophet or at best, was not as great as those prophets which preceded him.

(Note- It should be pointed out that Badawi does not quote the biblical text but alludes to it by giving the specific chapter and verse reference. In similar fashion, instead of quoting the entire passage we will give the specific references to the verses which will allow the reader to check them personally. The only passages that will be quoted are those which help clarify a specific point in our rebuttal. Finally, we will not be responding in chronological sequence to Badawi's tract, but will be dealing with the main arguments presented by him.)

RAISING THE DEAD

COMMENT-

It is presumed since both Elijah and Elisha raised the dead, there is then no basis to argue for Jesus' divinity based on the fact that Christ was able to raise the dead since this would make the two divine as well.

Christians do not argue the fact that Jesus was the divine, unique son of God simply because he was able to resurrect the dead but based on the statements which Jesus made in relation to his ability to resurrect individuals from death. Unlike Elijah and Elisha who beseeched God for the ability to perform the revivification of departed souls, Christ claimed to be the very source of life and the power which enables the dead to be resurrected:

This is something which no prophet before Jesus would ever dare say. Yet Christ does, implying that he is more than a human messenger.

ASCENSION TO HEAVEN

COMMENT-

Unlike Enoch and Elijah who were taken into heaven by the power of God, Christ ascended by His own power and authority. In fact, Christ indicates that he will personally come back and take all believers by his own power into heavenly glory:

HOLY SPIRIT FILLED

COMMENT-

Christians often point out that Jesus was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. This presumes the fact that Jesus was unique and therefore the Son of God, since there was no human father involved in the birth of Christ but God's own miraculous hand who personally caused this supernatural conception.

Since it was God who replaced the male element in the birth process by causing Christ to be conceived supernaturally, without any sexual overtones whatsoever, Christ is rightly called the Son of God.

Badawi's attempted rebuttal is to suggest that other prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit, and some like John the Baptist while still in their mother's womb. (Luke 1:15) Hence, Badawi's reasoning is that these men should also be considered the unique sons of God if the Christian logic is true.

There are two responses to this assertion. Firstly, while individuals like the Baptist were filled with the Holy Spirit even while in their mother's womb, Jesus' conception by the Holy Spirit is completely unique. As we noted, his birth by the Spirit without a male father was to demonstrate his filial relationship with God, that he was/is God's Son in a unique way.

Secondly, Christ was not only conceived by the Spirit, but he also had authority to grant the Spirit to whomever he chose to give it:

Finally,

Jesus is unlike the prophets who could only hope and pray for God to give his Spirit to others:

It therefore becomes apparent that Badawi's responses to theses biblical comparisons are thoroughly inadequate and he fails to take in the overall picture of Christ as presented in the New Testament.

LORD

COMMENT-

Badawi seems to imply that the title Lord in reference to Jesus is nothing more than a respectful way of saying master, since for him, this cannot possibly imply divinity as in the Quran Jesus is no more than a prophet of Allah. To back up his assertion, Badawi often cites references in scripture wherein the title is used to refer to certain beings such as Saul (1 Samuel 24:8), or angels (Acts 10:4).

The problem with this interpretation is that it presumes that the title Lord only means master, neglecting the fact that this is also commonly used throughout the New Testament as a synonym for Yahweh, the covenant name of God. Two examples demonstrates this point clearly:

The Lord is quoting the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:4 where the term Lord is being used in place of Yahweh.

Paul is quoting the Greek Septuagint version of Joel 2:32 where the literal Hebrew text reads, "Whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved."

Hence, for Badawi to presume that the title only means or should simply mean master in relation to Jesus is erroneous.

In fact, the evidence indicates that the writers used Lord in the absolute sense of Jesus being God, not simply a teacher or master:

Elizabeth calls the unborn child her Lord. For a Jewess to say that would imply that the babe was actually Yahweh God, since the Jews knew only Yahweh as their Lord.

That Jesus is the lamb is clear from John 1:29:

This can only mean that Jesus is called Lord in the sense that he is God, not just a great master. Compare the title given to Jesus with this reference in 1 Timothy 6:15-16:

Hence, both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are referred to as King of kings and Lord of lords, clearly demonstrating Badawi's misinterpretation and misunderstanding of biblical theology.

MULTIPLICATION OF FOOD

COMMENT-

Jesus' miraculous ability to create bread from a few loaves, enabling him to feed thousands is astonishing all by itself. But even more astonishing is Jesus' reason for performing the miracle, a reason which no prophet ever gave as the purpose of their miracles:

Not only can Christ provide daily bread to sustain the physical body, but he alone provides spiritual nourishment which endures to eternal life:

No prophet ever dared to speak like Christ.

Although Badawi also attempts to refute the biblical evidence for Jesus' divine claims we will not be addressing it since we have already provided in-depth responses to these allegations in previous studies which are available upon request.

What we will do is to contrast Muhammad's life by the very criteria Badawi uses. In doing so, we will demonstrate that Muhammad does not measure up to the Bible's test of true prophethood.

RAISING THE DEAD

HOLY SPIRIT FILLED

It should be noted that the biblical teaching on the Holy Spirit is that He is fully God, being the third Person of the Trinity (Matthew 28:18-20; Hebrews 9:14), whereas in Islam he is not God but the angel Gabriel. So even the identity is garbled up.

ASCENSION

Even the alleged night journey of Muhammad cannot be substantiated. The Quran only mentions his journey to Jerusalem and the Aqsa Mosque (S. 17:1), with the hadiths indicating that his heavenly ascent was simply a dream since his body never left the room. It should be also pointed out that the sura presents a historical anachronism since there was no mosque at Jerusalem during that time, seeing that the Solomonic temple had been destroyed in A.D. 70. Furthermore, Masjid-ul Aqsa was not erected until A.D. 691 by Abdul Malik, raising the question as to what temple did Muhammad allegedly visit?

Another point worth mentioning is the fact that Muhammad died a slow and painful death. The hadiths record that he was a victim of poisoning and illness. In contrast, we are told that Moses died in the peak of health and was personally buried by God at the age of 120. (Deuteronomy 34:5-7)

With Jesus, God raised him from the dead to immortal glory, never to experience the sting of death again. (Acts 3:13-16; Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 1:17-18)

This strongly suggests that Muhammad was unlike Moses and Jesus, since he died disillusioned and lonely, leaving it up to his companions to bury him. Hence, as the Quran acknowledges, he was an apostle with no outstanding qualities, a mere mortal like us. (S. 3:144; 18:110)

MULTIPLYING FOOD

At this point a Muslim might contest the fact that Muhammad never performed any miracles since both the Quran and hadiths document his miracles.

For instance, the Quran in 54:1, 3:13, as well as 8:9 mention Muhammad splitting the moon and the angelic intervention at the Battle of Badr. These miracles are further attested to in the hadith literature.

There are several responses to these alleged miracles. 1) The clear witness of the Quran is that Muhammad was given no miracles whatsoever (S. 6:37,109; 10:20; 13:7,27; 17:59; 21:5-6; 28:48). To say that it does mention specific miracles of Muhammad is to imply an internal contradiction within the Quran. 2) The assumption that S. 54:1 is referring to the alleged miraculous moon splitting at the hands of Muhammad is not unanimously held by Muslim scholars themselves.

For instance, Yusef Ali in his commentary indicates that there are three possible interpretations commonly given by Muslims themselves. The first being that this is a sign which transpires on the last day. This is supported by the verse itself since it speaks of, "the hour (of judgement)" as being "nigh", i.e. at hand. Others view this allegorically, in the sense that the matter addressed has become as clear as the moon's splitting. The final view is that of Muhammad's splitting the moon.

3) The purported angelic aid at Badr is unverifiable since no one saw any supernatural beings descend on the battlefield. Furthermore, unlike the miracles of Jesus which are attested to by both ancient pagan and Jewish writings, we have no witnesses apart from the Muslims themselves to verify the historicity of this event.

4) The appeal to hadiths for the proof of miracles leaves more problems for the historian. This is primarily due to the late dating and composition of these Islamic traditions. For example, no literature compiled stems from the seventh century, but dates from the ninth century on. This leaves a gap of nearly two hundred years from Muhammad's death in A.D. 632 to the first collection of traditions by Bukhari (d. A.D. 870). Even Ibn Ishaq's biography on Muhammad, Sira Rasulullah, which purportedly dates to the eighth century, only exists in edited form by Ibn Hisham from the ninth century.

Hence, due to the great time factor involved it is not hard to see how stories of Muhammad's miracles could be forged and circulated, especially when there are no eyewitnesses present to prevent the development of fraudulent and mythical accounts from taking place.

We must say with all due respect that Badawi's attempt to discredit the biblical portrait of Jesus does not hold weight under a careful, scholarly exegesis of God's Word, the Holy Bible. In fact, the criteria which Dr. Badawi employs actually serve to discredit Muhammad as a genuine prophet of God. Therefore, we strongly urge him to abandon his unfortunately unscholarly method if he wishes to maintain his belief in Islam.

To conclude, in his zeal to disprove the divinity of Christ, Badawi overlooked a very interesting fact; even though the Holy Bible presents certain prophets who were capable of performing some of the many miracles of Christ, none could combine all these qualities together. This honor belongs to Jesus alone, demonstrating clearly his preeminence and superiority over all, being the Christ the Son of the living God.

AMEN

Continue with Part II