A Frustrating Religious Debate

I managed to get myself in a frustrating debate again. This time, though, the frustration wasn't because the other person was lacking in intelligence. In fact, this person seemed quite intelligence. The problem seemed to be because the other person had a fundamental misunderstanding of how to logically back up an argument.

Before I start recounting the story let me first make a clarification. This debate centered over a difference between Judeo-Christian beliefs and Muslim beliefs. I was arguing the Judeo-Christian side (though the Jewish and Christian views aren't entirely uniform) and the other person, argued the Muslim position. I have respect for all three of these religions, and he showed no disrespect towards them either. At no point did the debate degenerate to name-calling or ridicule of the other's beliefs. I was neither attempting to convert my opponent nor expecting to him to convert me, and I didn't really expect to come to a resolution we both agreed on. It was, at least to me, an exercise to see which of us could better back up our positions. So, this account is not meant to offend anyone - whether they be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

 

My story starts on the site Quora.com. It is a site where people can ask questions and people who know the answers (or think they know the answers) can supply them. I was browsing this site and I saw this question:

 

"Would the biblical Abraham, Moses, and/or Jesus convert to Islam?"

 

I myself provided an answer, but it wasn't my answer that started this debate, but another person's who I shall refer to by his first name only: Saif. His answer was:

 

Saif: "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah ]. And he was not of the polytheists. The Noble Qur'an - 3/67

But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, "Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah ?" The disciples said," We are supporters for Allah . We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]. The Noble Qur'an - 3/52

 

And Moses said, "O my people, if you have believed in Allah , then rely upon Him, if you should be Muslims." The Noble Qur'an - 10/84"

 

I was quite shocked by this. It seemed ridiculous to me, as quite clearly all three of these figures are Jews. Although, as a side note, I will acknowledge that the term "Jew" didn't actually exist yet in Abraham or Moses' time, but what I mean by the term is to refer to God's Chosen People that are part of the Covenant that God made with Abraham.

 

I hadn't known that there was a Muslim tradition that all these (and presumably other) people from the Jewish and Christian scriptures were considered to be Muslim. I don't even know if this is the main Muslim position or a matter of debate within Islam.

 

However, I didn't feel I could let this slide, so I replied to his answer to see what arguments he had to back up this seemingly outrageous claim. I decided to focus on Abraham in particular, because I felt the strongest argument could be made for his Jewishness (especially since some Christians would argue that Jesus is more Christian than Jew).

 

Me: "If you define a Jew as those who are a part of the Covenant between God and his chosen people, then Abraham is not only a Jew, but he was the first Jew. He was the one who God first made the Covenant with. It is also a matter of historical fact that Jesus and Moses were born in that Covenant with God".

 

I decided to focus on Abraham in particular, because I felt the strongest argument could be made for his Jewishness (especially since some Christians would argue that Jesus is more Christian than Jew). I also ignored his quotations from the Qur'an as I thought Saif would realize that as a non-Muslim, I wouldn't easily accept quotes from that contradict my own scriptures. But, as it turned out, that's exactly what he did expect.

 

Saif: "O People of the Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Then will you not reason? The Noble Qur'an - 3/65"

 

His entire argument was a quote from the Qu'ran that almost seems a non-sequitur. It says that the Torah and Gospel are not definitive because they were written after Abraham lived. But wasn't the Qu'ran written even later? However, Saif's point is that the Qu'ran says that Jewish and Christian scripture isn't necessarily accurate in its claims about Abraham. So I respond:

 

Me: "Yes, this makes him not Jewish by Muslim standards, but the Qur'an doesn't carry much weight with Jews or Christians".

 

Basically, I'm saying. Okay, I see that you believe it because your holy book says so. But why should I or other non-Muslims accept the Qu'ran's claims?

 

Saif: "If the words of God doesn't carry much weight with them, nothing else will".

 

So, essentially we should believe the Qu'ran because it's the words of God. Well, that isn't an argument I can't just let lie. He has to expound on why his words of God take precedence over mine.

 

Me: "Well, they're only the words of God according to Islam. If you want to prove your case to non-Muslims, you can't rely on quoting Muslim scripture to make your point. Would you accept the Abraham was Jewish if I told you that the Book Of Mormon says so? It's the word God according to the Mormons. If the words of God don't carry much weight with them, nothing else will.

 

According the Christian and Jewish scriptures, Abraham was the first Jew, and that's the words of God to both of their religions. So, since one set of God's words says he's Jewish, and another set says he's Muslim, then clearly we can't use the 'words of God' to settle the question".

 

I tell him, that if he wants to prove a point to people that don't believe in his scriptures, he needs to rely on more than just quoting the Qu'ran. To illustrate my point, I ask him if he would believe a claim I made based on a book that he doesn't recognize as having any authority. If he's going to claim that one set of scriptures has precedence over the others he has to provide a reason why. We can't put one holy book above another based solely what those books claim about their own authority.

 

Saif: "we should consider the book which has the highest level of authenticity , clearly they are all from God , but which one is the latest ? not translated ? unaltered ?"

 

This is his only attempt to make a logical defence of the Qu'ran here. Unfortunately, it is easily refuted, and he makes no further efforts. I pick apart his claims one by one:

 

Me: "I don't think we'll get any agreement over which scripture has the highest level of authenticity.

 

Untranslated? The Jewish Tanakh/Christian Old Testament is available in the original Hebrew. The Christian New Testament is available in the original Greek. The Qu'ran is available in the original Arabic. No clear winner here.

 

Unaltered? The Jewish scribes were always careful to make no alterations or mistakes. So, I doubt little has changed over the years. The Christians believe the Holy Spirit protects the Jewish and Christian scriptures from any alterations. Neither Jews or Christians believe any such protection exists for the Qu'ran, so the burden of proof is on the Muslims to show that the Qu'ran is unaltered.

 

Most recent? Newest doesn't necessarily mean best. L. Ron Hubbard's writings are newer than all three. Does that mean we should all become Scientologists?

 

Clearly, there will not be any consensus between different religious groups over whose scriptures are best. Quoting one only counts when you're trying to convince someone within that group. So, if you want to prove your contention that Abraham was a Muslim to non-Muslims, you have to come up with more than "because the Qu'ran says so" as an argument".

 

As a side note, I should point out that the Tanakh is the Jewish name for what Christians call the Old Testament. The Torah is actually just the first five books of the Tanakh.

 

Translation errors are mostly a non-issue. Copies of all three scriptures exist in the original language. There are differences in some of these texts, but that's not due to translation, but the question of alteration.

 

Alteration in the scriptures is a real issue, but can any of them claim there were none or at least no significant alterations? I looked it up, and a copy of the Qu'ran exists from Muhammad's time (or close to it). The Gospels were oral tradition that later got written down, and we don't have any of those original manuscripts, just copies. And the Torah is painstakingly copied and would be started over from scratch if the slightest mistake was made. Logically, I think the Christians are on the weakest ground here, but theologically, the Christians believe the Holy Spirit actively keeps the message in the scriptures from being perverted. Anyway, since we don't have the ultimately original manuscripts for any of the scriptures, I don't think we can definitively make any statements over which is the least altered.

 

And, as I stated, newer doesn't always mean better. There are several very new religious texts that very few people give credence to, and people continue to write more. Just because the Qu'ran was written closer to our time than the Gospels or Torah, it doesn't negate the value of the earlier writings.

 

So, I tell Saif that we aren't going to agree on which of our scriptures is more reflective of the truth of the matter, so he has to back up his contention that Abraham was a Muslim with more than quotes from the Qu'ran. Since I tell him that he needs to do more than quote the Qu'ran, his obvious response is a quote from the Qu'ran:

 

Saif: "God Says(And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. ) The Noble Qur'an - 5/48

if all the 3 books are from God , why they are in conflict ?"

 

My first impulse is to reply, "If I just told you that you need to give me more than quotes, why is your response to give me another quote?", but something about his second sentence gives me a hint of what he isn't seeing. He seems to be making the assumption that I see the Qu'ran the same way he views the Tanakh and New Testament. I try to explain this to him:

 

Me: "You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Christians and Jews believe that the Qu'ran comes from God. I know that Islam considers both the Jewish and Christian scriptures to be holy, although secondary to the Qu'ran. But the Qu'ran enjoys no such status amongst the other religions. To non-Muslims, the Qu'ran is not in any sense authoritative. You will never convince Jews or Christians to accept anything in the Qu'ran over their own scriptures".

 

I should point out that the three religions don't entirely disregard the holy books of the others outright - it's a bit more complicated than that. Officially, the Jews only subscribe to the Tanakh. Some do also recognize the Christian New Testament (there is such a thing as Jewish Christians), but that isn't officially part of the Jewish religion. Christianity originated as an offshoot of Judaism, and has appropriated the Jewish scriptures as part of their own (the old Testament). They generally believe in the contents of the Jewish scriptures, but in some cases their new Testament overrides or updates the Old Testament - for example, the New Testament frees Christians from the restriction agains eating pork. Islam, the most recent, sees both the previous scriptures as being God's revealed truth, but as the New Testament overrides the Tanakh, the Qu'ran overrides both. To them, the Qu'ran is the greatest and final revelation of God's word.

 

However, Saif seems to think that Jews and Christians see the Qu'ran as being a holy scripture, just not as important as their own, when the reality is that to non-Muslims, the Qu'ran is just another book. It might have historical value, but as a religious text, it's no more authoritative to Jews and Christians as any book you randomly pick of a bookshelf in your local library.

 

If Jews and Christians valued the Qu'ran in the way that Muslims value the Tanakh and New Testament, then his argument that the Qu'ran is more authoritative because it is more recent holds a lot more weight. Unfortunately, since this is not the case, he needs to provide better arguments for why the Qu'ran is more informative about Abraham or arguments not based on the statements of the Qu'ran. Unfortunately, he does neither he just responds with another quote:

 

Saif: "If the Jews or Christians are not convinced that the Qu'ran is from God , that doesn't change the fact that it's from God , (and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all) The Noble Qur'an - 53/28"

 

Well, it's true in a way. If the Qu'ran is from God, then the Jews' and Christians' beliefs about it in no way change that fact. However, it is also true that if the Qu'ran isn't from God, that what the Jews and Christians believe doesn't change that fact either. In fact, you can say the reverse. If the Judeo-Christian scriptures are from God, what the Muslims believe doesn't change that fact. Following this through, you can more generally state that no one's beliefs about facts affect the truth or falsity of those facts. This quote proves nothing about the authority of the Qu'ran.

 

In essence, Saif is saying, "I know I'm right, and I don't care what you believe". I take the hint. Saif isn't interested in logically backing up his beliefs. He just wants to state them as if they're self-evident truth - and if I can't see that, then it's my problem, not his. So, I give up, but not without explaining that I can't keep debating with someone that's stuck on a particular logical fallacy:

 

Me: "Me: I keep asking for reasons for the Qu'ran's authority from a source outside the Qu'ran and all you do is keep quoting the Qu'ran at me. Are you familiar with the term circular logic? I am asking why what the Qu'ran says is authoritative, and your answer is that it must be because it claims to be and it is authoritative. You can't use the conclusion you are trying to prove as one of the arguments in your proof.

 

Anyway, if I wanted to play your game, I could take any one of a number of religions' scripture and inundate you with quotes from it why it is the ultimate truth.

 

Regretfully, I will have to abandon this debate. You don't seem to be interested in following the rules of logic, just circular reasoning and fallacious appeals to authority. You aren't interested in trying to convince me of your position, but rather just quoting the Qu'ran until I give in or go away. I will never convince you of my arguments because you refuse to even listen to them. So, count this as a win if you want to, but you have failed to show me any logical reason to recant my contention that Abraham was Jewish, not Muslim".

 

 

If you're not familiar with the term, "circular reasoning" or "circular logic", this is when the conclusion you're trying to deduce needs to be assumed as part of the argument. For example:

 

Person 1: How do I know you are honest?
Person 2: I am honest because I say so and I wouldn't lie.
Person 1: How do I know you are not lying?
Person 2: I am not lying because I am honest.

 

Saif keeps telling me that I have to accept what the Qu'ran says because the Qu'ran says I should. He doesn't see that he is making the Qu'ran "pull itself up by its own bootstraps". For him, the Qu'ran's authority rests on its own authority. He doesn't see that even though it's logically possible for Qu'ran to be authoritative and claim that it is, that it's also logically possible for it not to be and make the identical claim. The claim of authority in itself cannot be proof of authority.

 

Since Saif cannot accept this, there is no way for me to argue against him. I could make the claim that my scripture is authoritative because it claims to be. There are plenty of references in the Bible warning not to change or add to the scriptures. I could easily argue that the Bible therefore discounts the Qu'ran by adding to God's words. But that would be doing the exact same thing as him, declaring the Christian Bible as authoritative based on its own claims that it is. I would just be merely giving up on logical reasoning and settling for dogma.

 

So, I give up. I let Saif take it as a victory if he wants, although I know that neither of us really won the debate. The debate never really got started. It can't get started if one side is only intent on stating their opinion and then hiding behind scripture quotes. ("La La La - I can't hear you!").

 

I will state emphatically that I don't see this as a fault of Muslims. I have encountered many Christians who argue the same way as Saif - taking the route I refuse to take. I haven't encountered any, but I'm sure there's Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. that do the exact same thing as well. It's a fault in human reasoning in general.

 

I should probably conclude this account here, but I just discovered that Saif added his own closing remark, so I will include it as well:

 

Saif: "OK we can end this debate by saying that Abraham is a Muslim according to the quran , and he is not according to the older scriptures, so the truth will be in the most authenticated book ,we will leave it here".

 

Saif is basically saying that we will agree to disagree, which I can live with, but I detect an undertone implying an unspoken "but I'm still right". He refers to the Qu'ran and the "older scriptures". He could just have easily said "other scriptures" or said the "Torah", which hints at his earlier contention that the Qu'ran is more reliable because it's newer. Also, when he refers to "the most authenticated book", I have no doubt there's an unspoken "which we both know is the Qu'ran". However, I will take his statement at face value and not reopen the argument.

 

At least we each got a small victory. Saif did at least convince me that this is a real belief that at least some Muslims have, even if he totally failed to convince me of the validity of the belief itself. My small victory was that I finally got a response out of him that wasn't a quote from the Qu'ran.