No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity

by Nabeel Qureshi

  I journeyed from Islam to Christianity as well, but my path was not quite the same as Fatima’s. I did not first become disillusioned with Islam, nor did I see the beauty of the gospel. As compelling as I find the Christian message now, I did not find it compelling at all as a Muslim. I believed that Allah was loving, that Muhammad was peaceful, that the Quran was beautiful, that tawhid was the perfect doctrine, and that truly following sharia made one righteous before Allah. I did not feel any need for the gospel, and I certainly did not see it as a superior message.

  But despite my preference for Islam, I had met people from a plethora of religious backgrounds, and there was an undeniable trend: Christians preferred Christianity, Jews preferred Judaism, Hindus preferred Hinduism, and so on for all people from all backgrounds. Was that why I, as a Muslim, preferred Islam?

  Recognizing that people tend to be more than comfortable with their given worldview, I did not want to base my faith in Islam simply because it was compelling to me. Rather, I was a confident Muslim because I believed Islam was the truth.

  THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH

  As a passionate young Muslim, I used to proclaim Islam’s teachings to whoever would hear me. In my mind, there was not the least shred of potential that Christianity was true, so I regularly engaged in dialogue, advancing the claims of Islam against the claims of Christianity.

  In this, Christianity and Islam are different from many other religions. While worldviews often provide subjective reasons to believe, Christianity and Islam both make claims about the past that can be tested against the records of history. When it comes to the person of Jesus, their truth claims are contradictory, and both cannot be true.

  For example, a foundational Christian teaching is that Jesus died by crucifixion in the first century (Mark 15:37; Matt. 27:50; Luke 23:46; John 19:33; Acts 10:39; 1 Cor. 15:3). By contrast, the Quran teaches the exact opposite: Jesus was not killed, nor was he crucified (4.157). Neither religion treats these accounts of Jesus as a myth, so we cannot resolve these contrary positions in some metaphorical sense. He either died by crucifixion or he did not. Either Islam or Christianity has to be wrong.

  Being absolutely convinced that Islam was correct on all such matters, I was more than ready to challenge Christianity’s truth claims in order to call people to Islam. That was the reason why I started investigating, to convert people to Islam, particularly my friend David. David challenged me, though, to apply equal standards of investigation to both Christianity and Islam. Of course, being convinced of the truth of Islam, I agreed and attempted to study the religions as objectively as I could.

  Examining the claims of Islam and Christianity over four years, I went from utter conviction in Islam to reluctantly embracing the gospel. The evidence in favor of Christianity was so strong I had no choice. What I discovered during my journey is what I will be sharing in the next five parts of this book.

  THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY

  When David and I started discussing our faiths, we began somewhat haphazardly. Just a few weeks after having met, while on the road for a university event, we ended up rooming together. As the evening was drawing to a close, David pulled out his Bible from his backpack and started reading. Having been trained as a young Muslim to dispute Christianity, I challenged him, charging the New Testament with textual corruption. That encounter opened the door to a wide range of conversations, from the inspiration of Scripture to inerrancy to Jesus’ deity and the Trinity and much more. It was an organic flow from one topic to the next, covering issues as they arose in the course of our friendship.

  There certainly was value in discussing these matters in the contexts of our real lives, but after a year of such discussions, I realized that my knowledge of Christianity was more shallow than I originally thought. It was not that I realized I was wrong; rather, I simply noticed I was not able to defeat David’s arguments. For the sake of being more careful and thorough, I wanted to start investigating these matters more systematically. It was then that we tried to distill Christianity and Islam to their cores.

  At minimum, what would need to be true in order for the Christian message to be true? Conversely, what would need to be true for the Islamic message to be true? We wanted to cut through all the fluff and distraction, and these questions allowed us to get past all the less relevant matters and denominational disputes. There are many branches of both religions that have different doctrines, but neither David nor I was interested in sect-specific teachings or peripheral issues. What defines Christianity at its core, and what defines Islam?

  For Christianity, we found the answer in Romans 10:9: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (NIV). Here we found the entire gospel message formulated as the minimum requirement for saving faith. It has three components: (1) that Jesus died, (2) that he rose from the dead, and (3) that he is God.1

  Thankfully, each of these three components can be tested from a historical angle. Did Jesus die on the cross or not? As we just saw, this is a fundamental teaching of Christianity that would have happened in history, so we can open the pages of our historical records to see if they support or rebut Jesus’ death. The same is true for his resurrection. Although it would be a supernatural event, it would still have happened in history, so we can investigate the historical records to see if they corroborate the truth claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Lastly, do the historical records indicate that Jesus claimed to be God or not?

  If all three are true, we have good reason to accept the Christian message, as these three components together form a compelling case. To illustrate, we should remember that many people claim to have supernatural authority and be divine. Usually such claims are pathological delusions of grandeur, and we are more than justified in dismissing them as madness. But if someone were to demonstrate their supernatural authority to validate their claim, then that would give us good reason to believe them.

  In other words, if someone were to say, “I am God,” we would think them crazy; but if they were to then say, “I will prove my claim by rising from the dead,” and then they actually were to rise from the dead, we would have good reason to believe them. This is exactly what Jesus says the resurrection is for.2 When people who were skeptical of Jesus’ claims asked him for a sign, he said that the one sign he would show them is his resurrection.

  Therefore, if history testifies that Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead, we have good reason to accept the Christian message.

  One very important matter to note about the core of the Christian faith is that Islam rejects all three components. The Quran explicitly denies that Jesus ever claimed to be God (5.116), and it also explicitly denies that he died by crucifixion (4.157), thereby implicitly denying that he rose from the dead.

  To understand my journey, and to understand the fundamental incompatibility between Islam and Christianity, it is absolutely critical to internalize this point: The central claims of Christianity are explicitly rejected by Islam. Islamic doctrine is antithetical to the core message of Christianity. Evincing the case for Christianity disproves Islam, and vice versa.

  As we have already explored, there are many points of agreement between Islam and Christianity, even regarding the life of Jesus, such as his virgin birth and ability to work miracles. But none of those points of agreement are the central proclamation of the gospel; the Scriptures do not say, “If you believe in the virgin birth, you will be saved.” It does say we need to believe Jesus is God, that he died, and that he rose from the dead. Islam categorically denies these beliefs.

  THE CASE FOR ISLAM

  When David and I considered how to distill Islam down to its essence, we found the answer clearly in the shahada: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” At minimum, one must believe that Allah is God and that Muhammad is his appointed messenger in order to be a Muslim.

  But is Allah, the God of Islam, the one true God?3 And is Muha
mmad truly a messenger of God? To investigate these, one must turn to the Quran and the records of Muhammad’s life. The Quran, being Allah’s self-revelation and the “why” of Muslim belief, must be carefully scrutinized. Similarly Muhammad, being the only direct recipient of the Quran and a presence in the shahada, must be critically examined to determine whether he actually is a messenger of God.

  If we can determine that the Quran is the Word of God, or if we can determine that Muhammad is a messenger of God, then we have good reason to accept Islam. Unlike the Christian case, where all components need to be true to build the case, defending the prophethood of Muhammad vindicates the inspiration of the Quran and vice versa. The case for Islam should therefore, in concept, be easier to establish, as only one point needs to be well defended: either the prophethood of Muhammad or the inspiration of the Quran.

  So, after careful consideration, David and I chose to study these five points:

  Jesus’ death by crucifixion

  Jesus’ resurrection from the dead

  Jesus’ claim to be God

  The prophetic authority of Muhammad

  The divine inspiration of the Quran

  Together, these five points constitute the case for Christianity and the case for Islam.

  THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE AND THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY

  Missing from this list, perhaps conspicuously, is the divine inspiration of the Bible. Although David and I had investigated the Bible, and its inspiration was very important for Christian doctrine, we both realized that it constituted the “what” of the Christian faith, not the “why.” Wanting to focus on the minimal requirements for Christianity, we had to exclude many matters that were very important but not central to the case, and the inspiration of the Bible was one such matter. Theoretically, even if the Bible had never been written, Jesus could still have died on the cross for our sins and risen from the dead, making the Christian message true. The inspiration of the Bible is not central to the case for Christianity.

  Unlike the Bible, the Quran is the “why” of Muslim belief. When skeptics challenged Muhammad to provide evidence for his claims, the primary proof he provided was the inspiration of the Quran.4 Repeatedly, at least five times, he offered the divine origin of the Quran as the reason why people should trust Islam. By contrast, when the early Christians proclaimed the gospel, the primary proof that they pointed to was the resurrection of Jesus, not the text of the Bible.5

  For these reasons, the Quran forms a central pillar in the case for Islam, whereas Jesus forms the pillar in the case for Christianity. This accords with what we have already learned about Islam and Christianity: The Quran and Jesus are the analogues in the two faiths, not the Quran and the Bible.

  That said, let us be careful not to conflate divine inspiration and historical reliability. We will be considering what various books of the Bible say about Jesus’ death, resurrection, and deity, so it behooves us to consider whether their records on these matters are historically reliable. But of course, assessing the accuracy of specific claims found in books of the Bible is very different from determining whether or not the whole Bible is the inspired Word of God.

  No early Christian ever argued the latter as a defense of the gospel, so we will not consider that argument here, though we will be considering the historical reliability of the Bible as far as it affects our case for Christianity. By contrast, on account of being the primary proof offered by Muhammad and early Muslims, we will be considering the inspiration of the Quran.

  OBJECTIVITY: DEFENDING THE FAITH VERSUS ASSESSING THE FAITH

  Before diving into this investigation, I want to share something that took me years to really grasp: It is virtually impossible to study these matters objectively. Not only do we all have a vested interest in defending the faiths we and our social circles have believed for years, but our beliefs also color the way we receive information. The same data will be interpreted differently by people from disparate worldviews. When we investigate Islam and Christianity as devout believers in one faith or the other, our Christian or Muslim presuppositions affect the way we interpret the evidence, and we often see what we want to see.

  When I started investigating the data, I came to the table with the presupposition that Islam was true, and I interpreted the data accordingly. No matter what facts David provided, I either made them fit my Islamic paradigm or I found some way to dismiss them. It is not difficult to defend what you already believe, and anyone who sets their mind to it will be able to do so, whether Muslim, Christian, or anything else.

  What is difficult is pursuing the truth about your faith and assessing it honestly. This feat requires one to be introspective and self-critical at frequent intervals. Although we can never completely overcome our biases, the most important step we can take is to pursue fair-mindedness with intentionality. While considering the data, we need to repeatedly ask ourselves the question: “Would an objective observer find the arguments compelling?”

  In the next five parts of this book, I will regularly raise this question while assessing the cases for Christianity and Islam. After examining the first three points, which impact the case for both Islam and Christianity, there will be a midway summary to solidify the findings to that point before examining the case for Islam.

  While still a Muslim, I decided that the best question to start investigating would be the one that is a fulcrum of disagreement yet is easy to investigate historically, allowing the least room for subjectivity: Did Jesus die on the cross?

  PART 6

  DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS?

  CHAPTER 21

  THE POSITIVE CASE

  UNANIMOUS RECORDS

  In 2002, David and I arranged a friendly interfaith dialogue with my father and two of David’s friends, Mike Licona and Gary Habermas. Mike was a martial arts instructor and insurance salesman who had started pursuing graduate studies in religion, and Gary was one of his professors. Gary had participated in many interfaith dialogues, Mike regularly hosted people from different religious backgrounds at his home, and my father was always enthusiastic about proclaiming Islam, so everyone felt comfortable gathering together and discussing deeply held beliefs.

  Part of the reason I felt comfortable, though, was because I had chosen a topic that we had heard discussed dozens of times by Muslim leaders and scholars: Did Jesus die by crucifixion? In addition to our relative familiarity with the topic, the Quran took a bold stance on the matter, and I was confident in the word of Allah.

  The Quran explicitly denies Jesus’ death by crucifixion. In 4.157, it states, “And their [sic] saying, ‘indeed we killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of Allah.’ But they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them. And those who disagree about it are in doubt about it. There is not anything of knowledge in this for them except the pursuit of conjecture. They did not kill him, for certain” (emphasis mine).

  Muslims interpret this verse in multiple ways. The view that my father and I were defending that day was the view that Muslim debaters like Ahmed Deedat and Shabir Ally espoused: Jesus did not actually die on the cross but rather just appeared to die. Although this is the position of notable Muslim intellectuals, it is the minority among Muslims at large. The majority of Muslims, going back to the earliest commentaries in Islam, believe that Jesus’ visage was placed on another person who was crucified in his place.

  My father presented our view for the first part of the evening, and Mike and Gary then interacted with us, explaining their reasons for believing that Jesus did actually die on the cross.

  SCHOLARLY UNANIMITY

  The most salient point of the evening for me, the one that mattered most to a mind accustomed to thinking in terms of authority, is that virtually no non-Muslim scholar agrees with the Islamic position. For all intents and purposes, there is a unanimous opinion within academia that Jesus died by crucifixion. Although scholarly unanimity is not evidence per se, it was a jarring perspective check
.

  Of course, I was not in the least surprised that Christian scholars were unanimous on this point. What surprised me was the insistence from non-Christian scholars that this matter was so firmly established that it was beyond dispute.

  Gerd Lüdemann is a German scholar who so doubted the Bible that he infamously said, “The person of Jesus himself becomes insufficient as a foundation of faith.”1 Yet even he did not mince words when it came to Jesus’ death. In his book, What Really Happened to Jesus, Lüdemann critically reexamines the life of Jesus from many angles, often dismissing the traditional Christian position outright. But in his section titled “The death of Jesus,” he spares only two sentences: “The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward. It need not be discussed further here.”2 He then moves on, as if lingering on the matter were pointless.

  Paula Fredriksen, another well-known scholar who frequently challenges Christian beliefs, also concludes similarly to Lüdemann, positing, “The single most solid fact about Jesus’ life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion.”3