I am into the 8th day of a
cold that may be the worst I have every had; but, I am finally beginning to
sense that it is nearing it's end. Apart from laryngitis, and some occasional
stuffiness, I am starting to feel almost 'normal'. So, now that the headaches,
constant drainage, and overall sinus pressure has vanished, I am now able to
focus on posting again, resuming my review of Mr. White's, What Every
Christian Needs To Know About the Qur'an. The first installment of this
review was published back on May 9th, 2013 (link), and focused on the book's introduction; this
second installment shall delve into chapter 6, "The Qur'an and the
Cross".
Chapter 6 (pages 129-143)
is the most disappointing of the book (IMO), and this, for a number of reasons:
first, Mr. White has chosen to limit his polemic to but one of the
interpretations that has been offered by Muslim commentators—the
"substitution theory"; second, only one translation is offered—for a
section of the Qur'an (Surah 4.156, 157 - some "forty Arabic words")
which many scholars have deemed the most difficult to translate, that is
troubling; third, only ONE Muslim source is referenced in the entire chapter;
and fourth, apart from the ONE Muslim scholar cited, no other scholarly author
of Islamic Studies (Muslim or non-Muslim) is referenced, not ONE (comparing Mr. White's with Dr.
Lawson's references on this issue we get: 1 vs. 300+).
I have already published 4
previous threads on Surah 4.156, 157 (link). Some of the key points covered in those threads
include: first, some Muslims are fully convinced that the Qur'an does NOT deny
the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus Christ; second, interpretations
offered by Muslims who do believe that the Qur'an denies the crucifixion and
physical death of Jesus Christ are varied and often contradictory; and third,
given the fact that other passages in the Qur'an clearly affirm the death of
Jesus Christ (Mr. White lists 2 such passages in his book: Surahs 3:55; 19:33 -
page 141), the interpretation that the Qur'an does NOT deny the crucifixion and
physical death of Jesus Christ is by far the most internally consistent one.
Now, I think the question
that needs to be asked is this: why does Mr. White totally neglect the more
internally consist understanding of 4.156, 157 ? To be sure, the vast majority
of modern day Muslims reject this interpretation, but then, the vast majority
of modern day Muslims also reject the understanding that the corruption of the
"Torah and the Gospel" spoken of in the Qur'an pertains to interpretation
and not wholesale textual corruption—Mr. White defends the minority
position on this issue (see chapter 8, pp. 165-192). So, while Mr. White
vigorously defends one minority position, he totally ignores another; his
reasons are unknown to me, but one issue comes to the fore: the issue of
consistency.
Moving from Mr. White's
polemic, to that of Muslim apologists, the question of why the majority of
Muslim commentators have rejected the internally consistent interpretation of
4.156, 157 remains. Dr. Lawson touches on a number of possible reasons in his
exhaustive book, The
Crucifixion and the Qur'an, but one very interesting possibility was
not included. I shall now present what may be the most telling reason why the majority of Muslim commentators have rejected the
internally consistent interpretation of Surah 4.156, 157. The following is from
al-Kindi's, Apology, as found in N.A. Newman's, Early
Christian-Muslim Dialogue [a book I recommended to my readers back on Dec.
2, 2011 (link); a book referenced numerous times by Mr. White in
his book (pp. 49, 57, 102, 103, 192, 278), but NOT for what follows]:
They say [Muslims] that
during his lifetime [Muhammad's] he told them not to bury him when he died. He
said that God would raise him to heaven, as Christ our Lord was raised, and
that he was too dear to God to be left on earth more than three days. They
cherished this hope, and when he died on Monday, the 12th night of the first
Spring moth in the 63rd year of his age, after an illness of 14 days, they laid
him out, believing he would be raised to heaven as he had said. But when the
third day had come, corruption had already set in, and their hope failed. They
despaired of his vain assurance, and buried him in the earth on the 4th day.
(N.A. Newman's, Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue, p. 444.)
N.A. Newman, in chapter
note #48, adds the following important data:
[48] Though there appear
to be no Muslim sources for Muhammad ever saying that he would be resurrected
as Jesus was on the third day, al-Kindi's accusation is not entirely without
merit...Shahih Bukhari, The Virtues and Merits of the Companions of the
Prophet, ch. 6, hadith 18, vol. 5, p. 13 shows 'Umar as saying that Muhammad
was to be resurrected...if Muhammad had said that he was to be resurrected and
then was not, this would have been reason enough for a fairly well organized
cover-up on the part of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and even the rest of the community...In
view of the many inconsistencies concerning the death of Muhammad, it is quite
possible that there were Muslim hadith in al-Kindi's day which reported that he
was to be resurrected in a manner similar to Jesus. Moreover, it appears that
none of the later Muslim apologists even tried to respond to al-Kindi's charge,
though they must certainly have known of it at least through al-Biruni. (Ibid..
pp. 528, 529)
Nothing of this in Mr.
White's book, nothing concerning important Muslim figures who affirmed the
crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, nothing concerning Dr. Lawson's
scholarly treatment—sure makes me wonder about the book's title...
More installments to
follow, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
