A Conversion of False Premises
By Michael Gryboski
Introduction:
Hussein Abdulwaheed Amin is different from many of the Muslim apologists and writers out there. The telling difference between Amin and so many others is that he is neither Arab nor Persian, neither Pakistani nor Indonesian. Rather, he is an Irish Catholic from a pious Christian background. So when he claims with a level of academic research that Islam is the true religion and Christianity has been polluted, his words seem more damning than most.
However, as shall be seen, his arguments are not as strong as his identity background may suggest. Indeed, when I was first given his presentation in full in print, I actually doubted his claim to having a Roman Catholic background. That said, I offer this response to the whole of his much presented story of conversion. Unfortunately, the website where I first found his testimony has been suspended for some reason. Nevertheless, I have done my best to find his work elsewhere.
I. Gospels
The author says that the Four Canonical Gospels are “unreliable third and fourth-hand accounts” but also believes that the Qur’an is “perfectly preserved and unaltered.”1
The author considers proof that the Qur’an is reliable because it “was revealed in its entirety to one prophet, Mohammed” and has decided that the Bible, whose books come from multiple authors who each proclaim the same thing, to be “unreliable.”
According to the historical method, when an event is verified by multiple sources, it has a stronger credibility than an event verified by only one. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John makes four. Mohammed makes one.
Also of note is that although the author dismisses the Gospels as “unreliable”, passages first recorded in the New Testament nevertheless appear in the Qur’an. An example of this was the Angel’s Annunciation to the Virgin Mary: Luke 1:26-37, 2:1-21, and Qur’an 19.16-35.
Is one passage somehow unreliable and yet another reliable?
The author also considers the Bible “unreliable” because it was compiled “long after Jesus' lifetime” and yet the Qur’an was not officially compiled until after the death of Mohammed. In both cases the books in question began as works largely learned orally with scant written origins in predominantly pagan environments. And yet one is unreliable and the other is reliable.
How does the author know that the paganisms of the Arabian Peninsula did not in some way influence the Qur’an? Remember: passages from the “unreliable” Gospels nevertheless wound up in the Qur’an; so if one “unreliable“ thing can pop up, others can as well. As with the Canonical Gospels, people other than the central figure wrote the words down, yet one is reliable and the other unreliable.
And while the author says that the Canonical Gospels are “unreliable”, he points as authoritative the Gospel of Barnabas:
“Barnabas was acknowledged as the founder of the Christian Church in Cyprus and was the author of a Gospel which was accepted by the earliest Christians. But his Gospel was arbitrarily excluded from the Bible when the New Testament was officially compiled for the first time at the behest of the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine three centuries after Christ.”2
Problem is the Gospel of Barnabas has never been confirmed as having existed before the 14th century, a thousand years after the “unreliable” Bible was compiled. Writes Cyril Glassé, a Muslim scholar: “As regards the ‘Gospel of Barnabas‘ itself, there is no question that it is of medieval origin.”3
The author also repeats the inaccurate claim from the novel “The Da Vinci Code” that Constantine was a pagan when the Council of Nicea convened. Though not baptized, Constantine considered himself Christian at that point (and, interestingly enough, was sympathetic to Arian theology).4
I cannot take seriously the arguments of someone who says the Bible can’t be trusted and yet points to hoaxes as authoritative and another book that quotes or paraphrases from the Bible. I also have a hard time believing that separate accounts that correspond with each other and were written within a century of certain events are somehow less reliable than a single account written centuries later.
The author’s claims of corruption and distortion are built on speculation, as the Bible itself has a lengthy history of being meticulously copied and preserved.5 A history the author chose to ignore, just as undoubtedly critics of the Qur’an ignore the history of its meticulous preservation.
II. Jesus
The author makes a series of claims regarding Jesus. First one is that he questions the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ lineage.
“How can the true Word of God contain two glaringly different genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-37)? And why include human genealogies at all if Jesus were truly the literal or physical ‘Son of God‘?”6
The author makes no effort to note that the two genealogies should be “glaringly different”, since one goes only as far back as Abraham whereas the other goes all the way back to Adam. It must also be noted that most biblical scholars believe the titles given to each name to be more of a “forefather” than biological father, which would explain some names are mentioned in one and some in another.
The reason for the genealogies is to note the fulfillment of prophecy, that Jesus comes from the line of King David, or as often called “The Root of Jesse” (Jesse being the biological father of David).
The author has a section entitled “Doubts about Jesus's divinity even within the Gospels”, which he claims parts of the Bible show a lack of divine origin for Jesus. Before going into the examples he gives, it must be mentioned that according to constantly reaffirmed Christian dogma, as the incarnation of God Jesus is seen as being both “True God and True Man” or both “Fully Human and Fully Divine.”
So when Jesus talks of having a “different will” from God the Father, it is his human nature that is noted, not his divine nature. When he is killed on the cross, it is the human nature that dies. (Minor aside: it must be noted that Jesus‘ human will was fully submissive to the Divine Will, which shows perfection.)
The author considers the many instances that Jesus prays as an example of Jesus being human, which would be correct albeit half the story. Jesus was the most perfect man and so as a perfect man prayer would have to be part of his life. It is also noted that, as the most perfect teacher, Jesus is educating those around him by praying and showing the right way to pray, most famously with the “Our Father” prayer.
The author claims that Jesus denied his divinity in Matthew 19:16-17, Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19. All three passages deal with the same story; by repeating it like this the author implies there are many instances rather than one. Quoting the Matthew account:
“Now behold, one came and said to Him, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?‘ So He said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.’”7
The author misinterprets for Jesus was not denying his divinity, but instead was challenging the rich man’s interpretation of good. The rich man assumed that salvation came through merely being a good person and Jesus was denouncing that perspective.
The author then claims that Luke 7:16, 13:33, 24:19; John 4:19 show Jesus’ own followers not referring to him as God but rather other titles like prophet.
However these are irrelevant, since the Gospels often speak of people not understanding why Jesus came and who he was. Their words, though positive, hold no more weight as to what Jesus considered himself than those misguided westerners who think Muslims worship Mohammed, rather than simply follow his revelation instead. (In the latter, the mistake has been inversed).
The author claims that Jesus would have been “horrified” by the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet there are several verses in the Bible where Jesus affirms the doctrine, for example when he declared “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30) Of course, when confronted with evidence like this the author could always back away and say that since the Gospels are “unreliable”, it means little.
Part III. Paul and the Trinity
The author levels much of his anger at Paul of Tarsus, constantly referring to Saint Paul as someone who is of an untrustworthy nature:
“In fact, he personally never even met Jesus, yet claimed to receive visions of Jesus which overrode the first-hand historical and theological knowledge of those who had known and followed Jesus during his actual ministry.”8
This is a strange claim to make given that the author, as a Muslim, believes that Muhammad’s account overrides the Canonical Gospels and Paul as well. Like Paul, Muhammad never met Jesus and yet its somehow okay for his words to override older Scriptures. The author also claims that Paul contradicted the Gospels, which is yet another claim he offers little evidence to substantiate.
“Saint Paul's missionary work was overwhelmingly directed at polytheist pagans in the northern Mediterranean.”9
This should not be an argument against the merit of the work of Paul, since most of the inhabitants of that region were “polytheist pagans” with Jews as a small minority. How is converting a non-Jewish population somehow evidence against Christianity? That is like Muslims converting non-Arabs as evidence against Islam.
The author says that he “suspect[s] that Paul distorted the message of Jesus to make it more acceptable to this audience” and uses the event described in Acts 17:22-23 as an example. The passage reads as follows:
“Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: ‘People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.’”10
Reasoning with pagans using pagan assumptions is a strange denunciation for the author to make, when the author is attempting to justify converting from Christianity using Christian examples. Another example of this anti-Paul rhetoric by the author comes later:
“There is also evidence that Paul made things up as he went along and conjured up doctrine on the hoof without reference to Jewish scripture, the teachings of Jesus or even one of his own famed visions.”11
His evidence?
“For example, in 1 Corinthians 7: 25 in reply to a query about unmarried people, Paul admits that ‘I do not have a command from the Lord‘, yet nevertheless proceeds to offer his own private opinion in his self-proclaimed capacity as ‘one who by the Lord's mercy is worthy of trust‘. ”12
And yet if Paul was trying to deceive his audience, as the author claims, then how come he freely admitted that it was his opinion rather than a command from God? Wouldn’t an actual deceiver not even say that much?
The ultimate disdain the author has for Paul stems from the theory that Paul “corrupted Christianity” by creating the idea of the Holy Trinity. The author does not hold a high opinion of the Trinity.
“I came to reject Pauline church doctrinal innovations such as the Trinity, a concept unknown to Jesus' disciples and not definitively established as official church doctrine until as late as 381A.D.”13
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is seen by many as a complex view, because on the surface it appears so contradictory. The Trinity is the belief that God is one, but God is also three, or “Three in One and One in Three” as the hymn by Saint Patrick reads. The idea of something being both multiple and singular seems bizarre.
And yet, we have examples of it in our world. Saint Patrick, when evangelizing the Irish, pointed to the three-leafed clover. He would tell his audience about how as the clover has three leaves and yet is one creature, so God has Three Persons and yet is One. The United States of America provides another example. The USA is governed by a single federal body that has three branches. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of the Federal Government are three distinct entities, yet they are nevertheless in one government. No American political scientist would be taken seriously if they posited the idea that the USA is ruled by three separate governments, nor would they be taken seriously if they claimed the USA is ruled by a unitary government.
Regarding the claim that the Trinity was ‘unknown’ to Jesus’ disciples, I point as examples verses from the Canonical Gospels. These accounts include the words of Jesus and were recorded by his disciples, meaning that it’s the two parties the author says did not believe in the Trinity.
“I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” (John 1:1-2)
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)
Granted, the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, hence the argument that the doctrine does not appear until the fourth century. However, given the references and allusions to the Trinity found in the New Testament, the Trinity does make appearances beyond the words of Paul. To say that the Trinity does not appear in the Bible because the specific word does not appear is akin to saying that the Zebra did not exist until zoologists gave it a name.
The author’s failure to understand how the Trinity can be a monotheistic concept is to be expected, for this failure to understand is written in the Qur’an, the central holy book of Islam. In many verses, Christians are identified as worshipping three deities rather than one. Examples:
“They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary’ while the Messiah has said, ‘O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.’ Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire.” (5:72)14
“And do not say, ‘Three‘; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son.” (4:171)15
If the author were to admit that the Trinity is monotheistic, the author would be admitting that the Qur’an contains factual errors. And yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the very document the author once adhered to, says “We do not confess three gods, but one God in three persons.” (CCC, paragraph 253)16
Part IV: Arianism and Judaism
While dismissing Trinitarian Christianity as wrong, the author points to Arian Christianity as correct, saying it was the true breed of Christianity that was more compatible with Islam.
“I found myself in sympathy with the more purely monotheist beliefs of the late third and early fourth century priest Arius of Alexandria and others such as Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia…”17
What makes the faith journey of the author strange is that all this time he speaks of not trusting the Canonical Gospels, believing that they came later than the life of Jesus and are therefore untrustworthy. Yet at the same time he first places his faith in a priest whose movement does not predate the 4th century and then another figure whose revelation was not recorded until the 7th century.
The author claims that Arianism was “official church doctrine” in the fourth century and yet shows as his only evidence of this a misquote from Saint Jerome: “the whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian.” In context, Jerome was not referring to “the whole world” in a literal sense, but rather was talking about how after one council several church positions became occupied by Arianists.18
It is also strange that the author would say that Arianism naturally transferred to Islam when most of the territory Arianism would have prominence in at various times (Central Europe, Iberia, Northern Italy) are now predominately Roman Catholic!
The author also considers Trinitarian Christianity to be lacking in historical precedence with regards to the religion Christianity stems from, Judaism. Writes the author:
“I had serious doubts about the validity of Christianity per se, specifically with the doctrine of Original Sin and the consequential need for the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Son of God, as a spiritual redeemer of souls in atonement. Both these concepts are unknown and alien to the Judaism from which Christianity is supposed to be derived.”19
Not exactly. The Law of Moses, as recorded in the Pentateuch, actually has numerous passages on how to prepare sacrificial offerings to God. An example:
“If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. He is to present the bull at the entrance to the tent of meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it there before the LORD. Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and carry it into the tent of meeting. He is to dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle some of it seven times before the LORD, in front of the curtain of the sanctuary. The priest shall then put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense that is before the LORD in the tent of meeting. The rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting.” (Leviticus 4:1-7)20
The Old Testament also speaks of God “walking” upon the earth, as though in human form. An example of this:
“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8)21
Indeed, there is even one passage where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, which He eventually changes his position as it was a test of faith.22 That said, consider that the Old Testament had blood sacrifices for atonement, God “walking” on the earth, and a command for a son to be sacrificed in faith. To say nothing of the many passages (Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 as notable examples) whose words strongly resemble the events of the life of Jesus.
How the author could ignore all this evidence leads me to conclude that he was not looking for the evidence. A common Protestant claim has always been that Roman Catholics do not read their Bibles. The author, if truly coming a Catholic background, seems to vindicate that accusation.
The author also mentions things that actually run contrary to his argument regarding Judaism and Christianity.
“In addition, it seems silly to have to point it out but Jesus, his apostles and disciples were Jews whose scriptures were in Hebrew.”23
“…the Jerusalem church, led by Peter and comprised of the original Jewish disciples of Jesus. They saw themselves as a movement within Judaism and would not accept gentiles unless they converted to Judaism, for example through circumcision and acceptance of Jewish dietary law. ”24
So, on the one hand, the author writes that for Jews “the notion of a literal and physical Son of God would have been blasphemous and in direct contravention of the First Commandment” and yet also writes that “Jesus, his apostles and disciples were Jews.”
Obviously some Jews must have concluded that Christianity’s core beliefs were not absurd or else how could Christianity have begun in the first place?
Part V. Conclusion
Throughout the essay, Hussein Abdulwaheed Amin makes several historical, factual, and scriptural errors and says things that seem curious for someone purportedly from a Roman Catholic background. For one, Amin said that the Roman Catholic Church “stems from” Paul, which is a weird thing for any Catholic to say given how much more prominence Peter has in the Church. Peter was, after all, the first Pope, and the Vatican Church is known as Saint Peter’s, not Saint Paul’s.
Yet, there are some indicators of a Catholic background, namely the impression that Roman Catholicism is all there is and no other wing of Christianity is significant enough to mention. This is yet another Protestant stereotype given to Catholics. When Amin cites as authoritative the Good News Bible translation, and adds that it was declared infallible by the papacy, he ignores the fact that over half of Christendom does not care what the Catholic Church deems infallible and would care less about what the Good News Bible has to say in translation or commentary.
Nevertheless, given his blind acceptance of the Gospel of Barnabas, a hoax that even Muslim scholars consider unreliable, and his blatantly contradictory reasoning regarding what texts can be reliable and what cannot be, I must conclude that though Amin may have had a Catholic background he was likely already inclined to Islam when supposedly doing his independent studies. The bias factor is apparent in his delivery and has led me to conclude that he left Christianity for reasons based on either factual error or a pre-existing bias towards Islam.
Sources:
1. http://www.thedeenshow.com/nonmuslims.php?id=228, accessed December 24th, AD 2011.
2. Ibid.
3. Cyril Glassé, The New Encyclopedia of Islam (3rd ed.), USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., p. 88.http://bit.ly/uEAlRq, December 24th, AD 2011.
4. For more on Constantine and the Council of Nicea, please read my essay on the “Da Vinci Code”, found at http://cross-nation.com/dapldavincibrown.html
5. In addition to the large numbers of copies of the Old and New Testaments, there is also of great worth the Dead Sea Scrolls, a survey of which can be ound at this URL: http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
6. http://www.thedeenshow.com/nonmuslims.php?id=228, accessed December 24th, AD 2011.
7. http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+19:16-30, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
8. http://www.thedeenshow.com/nonmuslims.php?id=228, accessed December 24th, AD 2011.
9. Ibid.
10. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A16-34&version=NIV, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
11. http://www.thedeenshow.com/nonmuslims.php?id=228, accessed December 24th, AD 2011.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. http://www.true-islam.info/trinity-and-quran/, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
15. Ibid.
16. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/253.htm, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
17. http://www.thedeenshow.com/nonmuslims.php?id=228, accessed December 24th, AD 2011.
18. John Henry Cardinal Newman, early church historian, wrote “The episcopate…did not…play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did.” (found at http://www.newoxfordreview.org/briefly.jsp?did=0703-briefly, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
19. http://www.thedeenshow.com/nonmuslims.php?id=228, accessed December 24th, AD 2011.
20. http://niv.scripturetext.com/leviticus/4.htm, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
21. http://niv.scripturetext.com/genesis/3-8.htm, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
22. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22&version=NIV, accessed December 25th, AD 2011.
23. http://www.thedeenshow.com/nonmuslims.php?id=228, accessed December 24th, AD 2011.
24. Ibid.
