|
13 - The Facts on Islam
SECTION IV
A General Critique
13. How convincing are Muslim apologetic?
The word apologetics is
derived from the Greek apologia, which means "to present a defense for."
In "How Muslims Do Apologetics," philosopher and theologian
John Warwick Montgomery discusses a characteristic problem of Muslim apologetics
- that of defending Islam by "discrediting" Christianity. But "such refutations
are not 'apologies' or defenses at all, but are ad hominem arguments of
an offensive nature." Even if Muslim apologists could disprove
Christianity, this would not prove the truth of Islam. Islam would still require
- on its own merits - independent verification as a revelation of God. And
because the evidence is lacking, it is precisely at this point that Muslim
apologists fail. Muhammad was clearly inspired by some supernatural source, but
how could he be inspired by God if his inspiration rejected God's revelation in
the Bible?
Biblical inspiration and accuracy are independently verified
by prophecy, archeology, manuscript evidence, and other means. We have
documented this in some detail in our book Ready with an Answer (Harvest
House). Islam, however, offers no genuine evidence that the Koran is inspired
other than Muhammad's own claim he was inspired by Gabriel. But what if Muhammad
was wrong? If the biblical God is the true God and if Muhammad were a prophet of
God, he would never have denied God's revelation in the Bible.
So how do Muslims do apologetics? First, they argue that the
Christian faith is a false religion. Specifically, using the arguments of
liberal theologians, higher critical methods (e.g., form criticism), and
rationalistic skeptics of Christianity, they reject biblical authority and the
deity of Christ. Second, they present arguments in defense of Islam that are
convincing to Muslims but are also largely subjective and prove nothing. In
essence, Muslim apologetics are not convincing because they characteristically
reject the rules of logic and evidence. Space does not permit elaboration,
except to refer the reader to taped sessions of Christian-Muslim debates and
more specific evaluations of Muslim apologetic methods. For illustrations we
recommend the 7-hour debate between Dr. Robert A. Morey and Dr. Jamal Badawi,
who some Muslims claim is the best apologist for Islam in North America. We also
recommend materials mentioned in the notes that are published by both Muslims
and Christians. In essence, after evaluating Muslim apologetics we are forced to
conclude that the average Muslim, unknowingly and regrettably, has been misled
by apologists whose primary arguments are based on subjectivism, logical
fallacies, anachronism, and unfortunate historical errors.
John Ankerberg & John Weldon
|