Transcription
In this video, I want to examine some of the claims of what is often known as the Islamic dilemma. What is the Islamic dilemma? Well, it's a concept mainly used by Christian apologists these days, um, that suggests that the Quran presents a self-contradiction. It affirms the divine inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Torah and the Gospels, but then contradicts their core theological teachings, such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity. This, it claims, creates a dilemma for Muslims, uh, as accepting the Quran as truth would mean accepting accepting a scripture that purportedly supports and denies the same divine texts, uh, leading to a logical contradiction within Islam itself.
So the the idea is that the Quran basically affirms the Bible. Uh, and yet the Quran contradicts uh and rejects what are seen as uh Christian teachings about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus in that Bible. And this creates a logical problem. If the Quran is a divine word, if it's the word of God and and affirms the divine authority and preservation of the Torah and the Gospels, uh, but then contains uh statements that contradict these same scriptures, it's a fundamental uh logical contradiction.
Now, I think this is a a flawed argument and there have been many videos um basically deconstructing this argument, showing why it doesn't work at all. But in this video, I want to really focus on one particular point which hasn't really been focused on terribly much. Uh, and I want to draw on some very uh significant western academic scholarship um that's been published recently which I think throws some light uh on this.
But before I come to that, and I'll be uh examining, by the way, uh the recently published work called Key Terms of the Quran: A Critical Dictionary by this amazing uh professor at Oxford, Nikolai Sinai, and I'll come to uh his views on uh Surah 5:48, particularly one word within it, *muhaymin*, which is absolutely key to getting uh a truthful understanding of what the Quran is doing. And I'll come to that shortly. But in the meantime, I just want to make some more general observations.
Now, is it wrong to say the Quran endorses the Bible we have? Uh, is one way of putting this? And the short answer is yes. It would be wrong uh to say the Quran fully endorses the Bible as we have it today. Um, and here is why. The Quran affirms the Torah and the Gospel as revelations from God. This is in Quran 5:44-47. It describes them as containing light and guidance. It even tells the Christians, "Let the people of the gospel judge by what God has revealed therein" in 5:47. This shows the Quran recognizes their divine origin and enduring value.
But the Quran criticizes the misuse and distortion of these books. And um, some people are accused of concealing and twisting and writing things falsely in various uh texts in the Quran. Quran 2:42, 2:79, and 3:78 and 4:46. Now, this means the Quran does not present the Torah and Gospel in circulation as completely pure. Um, it honors the revelations but warns of human interference, basically. And the Quran presents itself, very crucially, as the final criterion. It describes uh the Quran as *muhaymin*, as the guardian, the overseer, the corrector over earlier scriptures in 5:48.
Now, this word *muhaymin*, which we'll look at shortly in more detail, is a very rich term semantically in Arabic. I have learned, and uh, and this is why um it's so important to focus it, I think. So Muslims are told to measure previous texts against the Quran, keeping what aligns and rejecting what doesn't. In other words, the Quran acknowledges truth in the Bible but claims to filter out later errors. So this is a a really important uh point.
So, what does the Quran? There's another interesting question. What does the Quran say of the 27 New Testament books? So, the New Testament is a a series of books. It's a library, really, written by many different people and canonized, put together as an authoritative list of scripture over several centuries. It didn't just suddenly become scripture in the first century. Definitely not. It took a very long time for it to reach the final 27 list of books that we know today.
Now, what's interesting is the Quran never lists or ever mentions the 27 books of the New Testament that Christians today recognize. The Quran only speaks of the injeel, singular, the Gospel given to Jesus. Uh, so for example, Quran 5:46, this is a single revelation. It's not a collection of books or collection of writings. The Quran also mentions the Torah and the Zabur, the Psalms, uh, and the Quran itself, but never mentions Paul. It never mentions the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It never mentions Acts or the Epistles or the Book of Revelation. The Quran recognizes one divinely revealed Gospel, but not the New Testament canon of 27 books. This is a really important point which is often ignored or misunderstood by Christian missionaries. And as I said, the 27 New Testament canon was only finalized by the Church centuries after Jesus.
So, from the Quranic perspective, what Christians call the Gospel had already been expanded into multiple writings and letters, some of which Muslims would see as purely human authorship rather than divine revelation. Paul's letters, for example. Now, the Quran accuses some Christians of inventing things and attributing them to God. So, Quran 2:79 and 3:78, of course. And it certainly rejects uh some doctrines uh key to Christian belief, like the Trinity and the divine sonship of Jesus. Um, this suggests much of the theological core of the New Testament, especially in Paul, would not be considered authentic revelation by the Quran itself. So, the Quran doesn't acknowledge the 27 New Testament books of scripture. It only affirms the original *injeel* given to Jesus by God.
And even the Gospels we have, say the beginning of uh Mark's Gospel, where Jesus goes out and preaches the Gospel, the good news. Now, he's not preaching the Gospel of Mark or Matthew, Mark, or Luke, or the Gospel of Paul. None of these have been written in Jesus' lifetime. Of course, he is preaching the *injeel* given to him. And this aligns perfectly with what Muslims believe, of course.
Now, there's an interesting verse which is often brought up by Christians. Quran 5:47. It says, "Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the defiantly disobedient." Now, at first glance, some people might think this seems to suggest that the Quran's endorsing the Christian New Testament as we have it, but the context and the language make things much more nuanced. As I've already said, the *injeel* always refers to the single revelation given to Jesus, not the 27-book New Testament. And when it says "judge by what Allah has revealed in it," it means judge according to the true message God gave Jesus. See, it's not difficult to understand once you understand the context. In other words, it's not telling Christians to follow the whole New Testament canon, but to be faithful to the original divine revelation. So, I think that's an important uh point to uh grasp that.
Now, uh, it's interesting um how classical scholars in Islamic tradition, like Al-Farabi and Ibn Kathir, how they explained this. They said Christians are commanded to follow the Gospel as revealed, but because they have altered and distorted it, they no longer have it in a pure form. So the Quran is not endorsing the Bible we have today; it's telling Christians to follow the true divine Gospel given to Jesus.
So, another interesting thing is um where could Christians find this Gospel? Uh, and I've often been asked this, and I think there are three answers. Muslim thinkers historically have suggested three possible ways. One is, actually, it is partly preserved in the Gospels. We have some passages in the New Testament, uh, for example, teachings on God's oneness, where Jesus affirms the Shema, uh, in Mark's Gospel, for example, teachings on mercy, the ethics, uh, the rejection of hypocrisy, and so on, are seen as authentic remnants of Jesus' revelation. The parables in Luke is another good example. Other parts are are very much human additions: doctrines of the Trinity, divine sonship, atonement. Those cannot be traced back to the *injeel*.
But the best way uh that the uh where Christians can find it is because it's preserved in the Quran. The Quran presents itself as the final source that preserves Jesus' real message: monotheism, *tawhid*, prophethood, about uh sincerity and piety, submission to God, the very meaning of Islam itself. So Muslims are reminded to measure themselves against the revelation given to Jesus. Since the pure *injeel* is no longer completely intact, the Quran acts as what is very accessible, the continuation and the confirmation of that message. So where can they find it? In part within the Gospels, but its preserved and reliable form is only really found within the Quran itself. So the reliable way to to it now is through the Quran, which is the restoration of Jesus' uh pure message.
Now, let's just give some examples where the New Testament preserves the true *injeel*. It's very interesting. So in Mark 12, I've already alluded to this. Jesus uh is asked by one of the scribes, you know, what's the what's the most important commandment? And Jesus recites the Shema. This is uh in the Torah, Deuteronomy 6:4. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." This is Mark 12:29. And this perfectly matches the Quran's monotheism in Surah 112: "Say, He is Allah, One." It's even the same word in Hebrew and Aramaic and Arabic, rather. Um, Jesus as a prophet, as a messenger. So in John 17:3, Jesus prays, "This is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." So this is very similar to the Quran's teaching that Jesus is God's messenger in 4:171.
Another example of uh the uh the echoes or the preservation of the true *injeel* even in the New Testament is uh submission to God's will. This is Islam. Matthew 26:39, Jesus prays to God in Gethsemane, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I will, but what you will." And this reflects Islam's teaching on submission to God's will, the very meaning of Islam itself. Um, ethics and mercy. So, for example, in Matthew's Gospel, chapter 5, uh, we have teaching on the lips of Jesus: "Blessed are the meek," and "Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are those who show mercy." And this echoes the Quran's stress on humility and compassion in Quran 26:63 and Quran 90:7. And there's even an interesting passage in again in Matthew, Matthew 7:21, where Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father." So Muslims often point out that here Jesus denies lordship and directs his followers to obey God himself, not calling him Lord, but following the will of God. Now, this is very consistent with the Quran in 5:72, for example.
So, the Quran preserves and clarifies the true *injeel*, uh, filtering it from later uh distortions. Now, let's look at a few New Testament passages where the Quran uh is very strongly critical. It just rejects these teachings completely, and these are places where Christianity's scriptures and the teaching of Islam uh part ways. So, one is the divinity of Jesus. In John 1:1, we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Um, now, I know there are arguments about how to interpret this. I'm just going by the most common understanding. I know Jehovah's Witnesses have a different understanding of that, and they may be right, but I'm going to go by the standard reading. John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." Um, again, you know, this is obviously something that the Quran rejects. "They have certainly disbelieved who say Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary." 5:72 in the Quran. So the Quran firmly denies Jesus' divinity and identifies him only as a great prophet of God.
Another thing that the Quran critiques and rejects is the sonship of Jesus. So in Romans chapter 1, Paul says Jesus was declared uh to be the Son of God with power. For example, "The Quran says it is not befitting for Allah to take a son." 19:35. So the Quran rejects both a literal and theological sonship of Jesus. And the Trinity, of course, um, is rejected. So Matthew 28:19: "Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Uh, now, by the way, this particular uh statement on the lips of Jesus in Matthew 28 is widely seen as not historical anyway by Christian New Testament scholars. I was horrified to discover when I was a Christian when I first came across this. The Quran is clear: "Do not say three. Allah is but one God." Quran 4:171. So the Quran rejects the Trinitarian formula completely.
The Quran, of course, teaches atonement. Uh, sorry. The New Testament teaches atonement through crucifixion. Uh, Paul says, you know, "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." Didn't say that in the scriptures, but that's what he claimed. "Christ died for us." Romans 5:8. The Quran, of course, says, "They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but it appeared so to them." And uh, and so on. So, the the Quran accepts parts of the New Testament that show Jesus teaching *tawhid*. He's teaching about prayer and humility and God's mercy and submission to God. Be a Muslim, in other words. But it rejects those passages that claim uh that claim that they think where Jesus is claimed to be God, the Son of God, or part of a Trinity, or that he died, that God had to send his son to die for humanity's sins. This is rejected uh completely by uh the Quran.
So, moving on to um, well, let me just um summarize uh the discussion so far, um, in one simple way of putting it. So, the Quran recognizes the Gospel given to Jesus as divine revelation. It affirms what we still find in parts of the New Testament: He's teaching on pure *tawhid*, calling people to worship God alone, submission to His will, and living a life of humility and mercy and so on. At the same time, the Quran rejects elements that arose later: claims of Jesus' divinity and sonship, the Trinity, the doctrine that he died for the sins of the world. Instead, it presents him as a great prophet and servant of God, honored uh and miraculous by uh, but always human. Thus, the Quran confirms the original *injeel* while correcting distortions uh that entered into Christian belief after Jesus. It's a really important point.
Now, I want to come to uh the academic substance of of this uh discussion. So, the Quran, uh, it describes itself as a *muhaymin*, sometimes translated as guardian, overseer, corrector over earlier scriptures in 5:48, as I say. Now, I want to dig deep a little bit deeper into this and cite a recent work by uh a very distinguished western academic scholar who's not a Muslim, as far as I know. Um, so looking at how 5:48 positions itself, positions the Quran rather, in relation to the Torah and the Gospel, because the word *muhaymin* is very rich. And I want to look at this briefly, offer my own comments, and then come to this academic work.
So, 5:48 says, in English, this is one translation: "And We have sent down to you the Book in truth, this is obviously the Quran, confirming what came before it of the Scripture and as a *muhaymin* over it." So, according to uh what I've researched, the Arabic root *h-m-n* or *m-h-y-m-n* in the classical lexicons, Lane's Lexicon and others in Arabic, give the meanings such as to watch over, to safeguard, to protect, to witness, to control or govern, to stand in authority over. In other words, it conveys a sense of a protective overseer, something or someone who preserves and corrects. So, this is the root, the Arabic root meaning of *muhaymin*.
So, when we look at the Quran calling itself *muhaymin* over other scriptures in 5:48, what it seems to mean is it confirms the original truth within the Torah and the Gospel, guarding that truth. Uh, it's correcting distortions and later additions. Uh, it supersedes the earlier scriptures in its its final authority and and as an arbiter. So, it's not just as a witness to those scriptures but a criterion. It's interesting, looking very briefly at the classical *tafsir*. Al-Tabari, in his work, said *muhaymin* means "quote, trustworthy over it, judge over it." Ibn Kathir, in his great commentary, celebrated work, said the Quran "quote confirms the true paths of previous scriptures and exposes what was distorted." And Al-Razi, the famous theologian and commentator, says this expression has the role of "means quote overseer, protector, and proof of what remains genuine and what is false."
So, you know, the conclusion inevitably is, you know, the Quran isn't just affirming the earlier scriptures; it defines their validity. Whatever is in the Bible which agrees with the Quran is accepted as genuine. Whatever contradicts it is seen as human alteration. Um, so this makes the Quran a final reference point in debates for for Muslims. So, that that's a really key point.
Now, it's interesting how Muhammad Asad, in his great translation of 5:48, um, puts it. He he says, "And unto thee, uh, a prophet, have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations, and determining what is true therein, judge them between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee." So, this is an interpretation of 5:48, but it would seem to be a reliable, a good rendering of it. The Quran confirms the truth or whatever still remains, determines the truth therein, and judges, you know, judges between them, and we are not to follow their errant uh views. So, uh, it's a very interesting uh choice of words. It's a good rendering of 5:48. I'm told it captures the Quran's role as a judge and criterion over earlier scriptures. Um, so that's uh uh very impressive indeed, I think, and it's faithful to the Arabic.
Now, I'm just going to move on now to uh this work that I mentioned earlier on. I'll just get it up on the screen here. Oh, before I do that, sorry, I'll just show you what I'm going to be quoting from. So, this is the book, Key Terms of the Quran: A Critical Dictionary by Nikolai Sinai. This is a huge, great wedge of a book. Who is the author? Well, uh, according to the cover, it says Nikolai Sinai is Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Pembroke College. He has written other works as well. And on the back cover are a series of endorsements. Couple of them very interesting. One is from Gabriel Said Reynolds of the University of Notre Dame. He's a leading Christian scholar of the uh Quran, and he says, "This book brings together the meticulous study of the Quranic text with insights from Islamic commentaries, late antiquity, biblical tradition, and cutting-edge contemporary scholarship. This work should be on the desk of every student and scholar of the Quran." While Wael Hallaq, the celebrated Columbia University scholar, is the author of *Restating Orientalism*. "This is a brilliantly conceived book that productively measures the lexical, technical, and analytical dimensions of Quranic terms, penned by a highly credentialed Quran scholar. This reference work will become a staple in the field of Islamic studies and beyond for graduates and undergraduates alike." And there are other references, other commendations on the back cover as well. So, this is a very serious and highly acclaimed work of academic scholarship, and there is a a whole entry on *muhaymin*. So, you can imagine how excited I was when I first came. Oh, an actual reference. Let's see what this uh expert says.
So, here we go. Okay. Now, be warned that this is not an easy read. I've had to read this several times, really, to uh grasp what he's saying. It's not written for mere mortals. It's written for academics mainly. But nevertheless, I think it's uh worth going through. Now, I'm putting it on screen so you can read it yourself. Um, so, how long is it? There you go. That's the conclusion, which I've highlighted in orange. Um, it is very technical. So, this is the entry for *muhaymin*. Um, now, the first paragraph is looking at the uh the one instance of *muhaymin* in Quran 59:23. We're not going to go there. Feel free to read it. But I'm looking at 5:48, of course. This is where the interest lies for us. The second, I'm now quoting from there. I'm going to quote little bits of it and then try and understand what he's saying.
"The second Quranic occurrence of the word is found in Quran 5:48, according to which the revelation vouchsafed to Muhammad confirms what precedes it of the scripture and is *muhayminan* uh *alayhi*. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that *muhaymin* might simply be an approximate equivalence of *musaddiqan* here. Such a pleonastic understanding is already part of the early Islamic exegetical record and has uh found favor among Western scholars."
Now, this is where it gets a bit complicated. So, bear with me. Try to have a look on the screen if it's difficult to follow. "However, considering that that in 5:48 *muhaymin* takes the preposition *ala* rather than *li*, and I'm not going to read all this because it gets technical. It's possible that *muhaymin* implies the stronger claim that the Quran does not merely confirm previous scriptures but also stands in judgment over them. In other words, that it is entrusted with authority over them, as early Muslim scholars gloss the expression on discussion. Tibari and others say this, of course, especially if one opts for the passive reading *muhayman*. This interpretation has the virtue of agreeing very closely with Syriac phraseology, and there's a bit there you can read this non-pleonastic climactic understanding according to which the attribute *muhaymin* has a meaning going beyond *musaddiqan* is moreover in line with other verses in which the Quranic proclamations stake out an explicit claim to playing the role of an ultimate arbiter regarding the meaning and content of Jewish and Christian scripture."
I hope you got that. It's not not easy uh to understand, but basically, it's saying what I was saying before in much more technical language. Um, so, the Quranic proclamations stake out an explicit claim to be playing a role of an ultimate arbiter, in other words, a judge, regarding the meaning and content of Jewish Christian uh scripture, Jewish and Christian scripture. So, this is uh *muhaymin* in his book. It's very closely, I think, aligned with what we've been reading. Um, so, is there a way perhaps of um expressing this uh more simply? So, let me just uh have a look at this.
So, um, I actually asked ChatGPT about this, to be honest. And uh, I said, um, what do you know? I shared this particular passage from Key Terms of the Quran: A Critical Dictionary, and I wanted uh ChatGPT to basically simplify uh what Nikolai Sinai was saying, just for a more uh general audience. So, the point one is this. This is ChatGPT. What Sinai argues: *Muhaymin* comes from the Syriac/Aramaic roots, *h-m-n*, meaning trustworthy, faithful, loyal. In 5:48, it is not just a synonym of *musaddiqan* (confirming), but as a climactic role. The Quran is entrusted with authority over earlier scriptures. It doesn't merely confirm, but it also judges their content. This interpretation matches early Muslim exegesis like Tabari, who glosses it as "entrusted with authority over." Sinai stresses this is consistent with other Quranic proclamations where the Quran acts as an ultimate arbiter of uh Jewish and Christian scripture.
So, um, I think what I'll do now is I will share this. Actually, it might be a bit easier if I uh do that. Um, so, let's just go to uh, right, just going to share this. Share screen. Here we go. Okay. Thank you for your patience. So, this is uh ChatGPT. So, as I said before, I just read that out. Number one. Number two, how this connects with our discussion. This reinforces the mainstream *tafsir* tradition. Tabari, Razi, all interpret *muhaymin* as meaning the Quran confirms the truth and exposes distortion. Sinai's philological approach via Syriac backs up the exegetical understanding. The Quran is not passively witnessing preservation. This is often a Christian argument, but actively exercising authority. It directly challenges the Christian apologetic reading referencing here, answering-islam.org, that *muhaymin* means the Quran testifies the Bible is intact. That view ignores both Quranic rhetoric and the linguistic background. Critical points. Sinai is cautious. He admits *muhaymin* could be read pleonastically, just reinforcing confirmation. But he favors the non-pleonastic climactic reading because it better, it fits better with the Quranic discourse and early glosses. He emphasizes that *muhaymin* equals "entrusted with authority over," which is broader and stronger than guardian and witness. This strengthens the case that 5:48 places the Quran above earlier revelations, not beside them. So, overall assessment: Sinai's key analysis in Key Terms of the Quran confirms what classical *exegesis* and our earlier discussion highlighted: *Muhaymin* in 5:48 does not mean the Quran protects the Bible as it stands. Instead, it means the Quran is entrusted with authority over the Torah and the Gospel, affirming their divine core while standing in judgment over their distortions. This scholarly and philological evidence undermines Christian claims that 5:48 shows the Quran endorses the Bible wholesale.
So, would you like me? It says to synthesize Sinai and classical *tafsir* into a single strong paragraph. Um, yes. Okay. So that you can read the paragraph for yourself. Um, here is a a debate, a debate-ready short version. It's uh, why not? When the Quran calls itself *muhaymin* over the Torah and the Gospel, it doesn't mean a passive witness to their preservation. The word from Syriac roots means "entrusted with authority over." Classical scholars like Tabari, Razi, explained it as confirming the truth that remains and exposing distortions. In other words, the Quran places itself above earlier scriptures as a final judge of what is uh genuine. *Muhaymin* means the Quran doesn't endorse the Bible; it judges it. This is a a sharp one-liner I can use, apparently. It's very, very forthcoming with its help.
So, this is uh what Nikolai Sinai, as understood by ChatGPT, has concluded about that term. This is an excellent work, Key Terms of the Quran: A Critical Dictionary, a hefty volume. It's a must-have. Anyone's interested in the scholarly understanding, according to the Western historical-critical method, at least, a critical commentary dictionary. This is a must-have text by a leading scholar. And to be fair, you know, there are um, you know, across the board here, everyone from Wael Hallaq to Gabriel S. Reynolds, very different personalities, Bruce Lawrence, Michael Cook, uh, and others, praise uh the book for its scholarship. So, this is a must-have uh text.
So, I I hope I haven't bored you to death with with this. Um, so, it really is the issue about the so-called Islamic dilemma. There is no Islamic dilemma. It's a fiction, um, a fake uh uh dilemma created by certain Christian missionaries who want to destroy Islam and destroy the Quran, of course. So, this is a polemical um, you know, pseudo-problem, as many people have pointed out using other arguments and pointing to other evidence. I'm not giving a comprehensive, definitive uh view at all. I'm just lasering into one particular ayah of the Quran, what it means according to classical *tafsir*, what it means according to the lexicons, what it means according to the latest cutting-edge Western critical scholarship. That's pretty interesting, I thought. So, hope you found that of use. Until next time.