In this article it is our aim to educate misinformed muslims about the Protestant view of scriptures (the bible); as it is often assumed that because we believe the bible to the highest and absolute authority for the believing Christian in his day to day living— that means it is the 'only' authority that we abide by which is completely erroneous and fallacious. It reveals a completely misguided understanding of this grand biblically defined truth.
And no sooner than we start reading Bassam’s article do we hit an error, here he says:
However, Protestant Christians such as Shamoun abide by the Sola Scriptura concept that teaches that the only source of religious authority is the Bible and nothing else. They don't appeal to traditions of any sort (like the Muslims, Jews or Catholics) in order to seek a proper understanding of scripture. They believe that scripture should be allowed to explain it self.
When representing what somebody or a group of people believe in regards to the faith they adhere to and the scriptures they abide by— it is best to at least represent them accurately or just don't bother trying at all. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Christian does not have any respect or does not value other writings outside the bible. That is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of the doctrine.
What we do believe in actual fact is that The divine writ is the final court of appeal in all matters concerning the doctrine and practice of the faith. Now when we come to traditions that are outside the scripture, we first and foremost have to exercise discernment in regards to what they teach as not everything they wrote is biblical founded, but those areas that we do accept— it is only because they agree with scripture. So, we do appeal to tradition when it is necessary to; but we must be very careful in this regard.
But notice the claim before this error:
Sam Shamoun has written a series of articles over here in which he is trying to show that the Qur'an when read alone cannot be understood completely and that it lacks detail. He has most probably taken this idea from the heretical Quranite sect.
These arguments don't affect us orthodox Muslims since we don't' believe that the Qur'an was meant to be read alone in the literal sense and that we must understand it along with the authentic Prophetic traditions.
Granted, this is an article primarily dealing article by Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam. However, we feel that it is vitally important to address this matter as it is misleading to a degree to say “These arguments don't affect us orthodox Muslims” for they most assuredly do effect all muslim as it is not just a sect that claims the Quran is sufficient in and of itself; but the Quran even claims such a thing in many places such as this one:
And the day We shall raise up from every nation a witness against them from amongst them, and We shall bring thee as a witness against those. And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender. S. 16:89
And it is from verses such as the above one which provides to many a muslim what appears a clear referent to the clear nature of the Quran. And yet, the Quran itself provides its own refutation of this very matter of its “clarity.” In Chapter 3 we read the following:
It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord'; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds. (Verse 7)
It would appear that the Quran is not only insufficient but incomplete in the sense that it needs something outside of its own pages to determines its exact meaning. Now Even Bassam has to admit this very thing as he does in these words “since we don't' believe that the Qur'an was meant to be read alone” while trying to honest to the matter, I do not believe Bassam even realises the danger that this opens up unto this issue— since the very works he will ultimately appeals too the Hadith collections are now superior to the Quran; and in fact, they are more authoritative since only about 5 percent of the Quran is intelligible.
Let us just consider an obvious example of this matter, in Chapter 4:157 we are told that Jesus Christ “was not killed nor crucified. This whole text leaves a whole load of unanswered question than does it answer questions; but the most important one for now is: what does the words translated many ways such as “but [another] was made to resemble him to them” actually mean? For this statement has spurned many interpretations, even translations. And yet there is no authentic narration clearly explaining it. So is the Quran clear in anything it says: no. And this is just one key example of many.
Now with all this said, we can begin to look at the examples that he provide as to prove the central thesis of his article; that being “The Incompleteness and Incoherence of the Bible.” In which he wants to make the biblical record appear just as illogical and incoherent as the Quran is in its totality.
The first example:
Here is the first example of how the bible is not clear in its teaching which we shall dealt with; for it reveals a a very acidic nature of Islam in its attempts at dealing with other faiths:
God commands in the book of Deuteronomy...
Deuteronomy 6:8
Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.
This verse is obscure in meaning. Tie what, bind what and how?
Here is the first verse that he chooses in order to demonstrate his central thesis and what is the obvious point to make on this matter. It would be that this man has not read the passage for it answers his question and settles the issue that he is having right now.
Allow us to just provide some of the context to illuminate this situation:
Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)
Now we have some of the context to which the single verse has conveniently been ripped away from. It may be due to the fact, that Bassam has just borrowed this from another place like all muslims have a habit of doing— but one thing is for certain he has never allowed himself to actually spend time in the Christian scriptures to actually get the answers to all such objections that he would raise.
It is just a very dishonest and disrespectful way to handle another religion scriptures; and hence, why a majority of Christians show far more respect towards the islamic scripture in allowing the text to stand and communicate it own message— even though do not agree with it. Now what of the these supposed points that the bible does not help us with:
“Tie what, bind what and how?” Well we only need to consult the context to see what is being referred to— it is the command “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Verse 4. This is what the Israelite people are to bind on their hands.
It is not some mysterious thing. All one needs to do is open the bible and allow it to speak for itself; then all will be made clear. Here are some commentaries on this matter:
Moreover, to help in keeping a sense of religion in their minds, it was commanded that its great principles should be carried about with them wherever they went, as well as meet their eyes every time they entered their homes. A further provision was made for the earnest inculcation of them on the minds of the young by a system of parental training, which was designed to associate religion with all the most familiar and oft-recurring scenes of domestic life. It is probable that Moses used the phraseology in Deuteronomy 6:7 merely in a figurative way, to signify assiduous, earnest, and frequent instruction; and perhaps he meant the metaphorical language in Deuteronomy 6:8 to be taken in the same sense also. — (Commentary critical and explanatory on the whole bible)
Thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand — As at that time there were few written copies of the whole law, and the people had it read to them only at the feast of tabernacles, God seems to have appointed, at least for the present, that some select sentences of the law, that were most weighty and comprehensive, should literally be written upon their gates and walls, or on slips of parchment, to be worn about their wrists, or bound upon their foreheads. The spirit of the command, however, and the chief thing intended, undoubtedly was, that they should give all diligence and use all means to keep God’s laws always in remembrance, as men frequently bind something upon their hands, or put something before their eyes, to prevent forgetfulness of a thing which they much desire to remember. (Benson Commentary)
Compared with the religious creed of all their contemporaries, how sound in principle, how elevated in character, how unlimited in the extent of its moral influence on the heart and habits of the people! Indeed, it is precisely the same basis on which rests the purer and more spiritual form of it which Christianity exhibits (Mt 22:37; Mr 12:30; Lu 10:27). Moreover, to help in keeping a sense of religion in their minds, it was commanded that its great principles should be carried about with them wherever they went, as well as meet their eyes every time they entered their homes. A further provision was made for the earnest inculcation of them on the minds of the young by a system of parental training, which was designed to associate religion with all the most familiar and oft-recurring scenes of domestic life. It is probable that Moses used the phraseology in De 6:7 merely in a figurative way, to signify assiduous, earnest, and frequent instruction; and perhaps he meant the metaphorical language in De 6:8 to be taken in the same sense also. (Jamieson— Fausett— Brown bible commentary)
The reality is when one allows all the biblical record to speak, they find that it is very clear on its central message. And in the case of this passage it is very clear that What moses was referring to was Law.
The second example
Now we get the usual kind of attack on Paul’s writings that we have become accustomed too with the muslim apologists. And yet such attacks are unwarranted and very misplaced:
Paul said that women must cover their heads in Church...
1 Corinthians 11:6-10 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. Do Protestant Christian women today practice this? No they do not. Why not? They argue that Paul was speaking in a specific cultural context. However, the passage makes it quite clear that Paul was not instructing that women cover their heads due to any cultural reasons.
Now we come to the second objection that Bassam offers to discredit the bible, and once again we see that he has not actually allowed the passage in full context to stand. The question “Do Protestant Christian women today practice this?” is irrelevant to the issues at hand which the Apostle Paul is addressing. Even more so, to the fact that many Christian women today do cover their heads. I would like to say that the passage is not dealing with a cultural instruction, and neither does any of the other rebukes in this book. They are general commands for believers. This is not me agreeing with Assam, but a simple recognition of what the bible actually teaches.
Now let us consider the passage in full:
But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11: 5-16).
Here we have the wider context of the passage, and one might want to notice the marital language being adopted in the context as a first point of referent. This is not speaking of every women, but specific women— those who have believing Husbands and are loyal to him in a biblical manner of submission (Ephesians 5:22-33). That will help us with the language of ‘headship’ in these words: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” (Verse 3) Now there is a order of hierarchy; and still there is an essential uniting in the family unit of Husband and Wife as there is with the Father and Son.
The next thing we need to note is found in these words “woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off;” What is Paul’s point in these words, well, it is simply that in that culture for a women to be seen teaching while having her head uncovered was a disgrace and was on the same plain as a women with her head shaved — a prostitute. And it was a good as being Identified as one even if you were not one. One should also bare in mind that the Christian view of women is far grander than the culture of this time; she was someone of worth, dignity and respect for she was a believer in Christ. It brought repute on the Lord and their husbands.
Also, notice how Paul says 'because of the angels' in verse 10. What does that actually mean? Some Bible commentators were perplexed and simply did not know and some even argued that it was referring to lustful angels! (Refer to this article) It appears that this passage does not make much sense when the Bible is read alone.
The fact that there are some verses in the bible which are not as easy to discern the meaning of — does not impact the doctrine of Sola Scripture not its clarity as a whole. The doctrine does not teach that every verse and passage is equally clear; rather, that main points on God, salvation and man are clear, while other thing will not be equally in this respect. we disagree with the article mention if it is in fact, suggesting what Bassam is implying. But we will never know as the sources are not accessible.
And as for the constant drumbeat of a straw man: “It appears that this passage does not make much sense when the Bible is read alone.” We teach that the bible is the final authority; but that by no means leads to the conclusion that we do not find value in the other writing that the church has given us. But that the bible is what determines the reliability of such writings.
Clearly, there is no consensus on the matter of what Paul was speaking about when he was referring to the angels. So doesn't this show that the Bible when read on its own is actually unclear in meaning in certain aspects?
And who says there needs to a consensus on what Paul mention with the referent to “angels.” Such a position does not really reflect on Bassam’s understanding of the bible, nor on Protestantism as a whole and our beliefs.
Here is a really good commentary on this passage which gives some important insight:
5. woman . . . prayeth . . . prophesieth--This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Ac 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34, 35; 1Ti 2:11, 12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till 1Co 14:34, 35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation. dishonoureth . . . head--in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). ALFORD takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one. all one as if . . . shaven--As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (1Co 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.6. A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven"; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, "shorn." a shame--an unbecoming thing (compare 1Co 11:13-15). Thus the shaving of nuns is "a shame."
7-9. Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man. he is . . . image . . . glory of God--being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Ps 8:4, 5; compare 2Co 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jas 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare Heb 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed]. woman . . . glory of . . . man--He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as the man (Ge 1:26, 27). But as the moon in relation to the sun (Ge 37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.
8. is of . . . of--takes his being from ("out of") . . . from: referring to woman's original creation, "taken out of man" (compare Ge 2:23). The woman was made by God mediately through the man, who was, as it were, a veil or medium placed between her and God, and therefore, should wear the veil or head-covering in public worship, in acknowledgement of this subordination to man in the order of creation. The man being made immediately by God as His glory, has no veil between himself and God [FABER STAPULENSIS in BENGEL]. 9. Neither--rather, "For also"; Another argument: The immediate object of woman's creation. "The man was not created for the sake of the woman; but the woman for the sake of the man" (Ge 2:18, 21, 22). Just as the Church, the bride, is made for Christ; and yet in both the natural and the spiritual creations, the bride, while made for the bridegroom, in fulfilling that end, attains her own true "glory," and brings "shame" and "dishonor" on herself by any departure from it (1Co 11:4, 6).
10. power on her head--the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad). because of the angels--who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Ps 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10; Ec 5:6). HAMMOND quotes CHRYSOSTOM, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" BENGEL explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Isa 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mt 18:10, 31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them.” (Jamieson— Fausett— Brown bible commentary).
The point in the “angels” comment is not just speaking to the Angels who are presently worshipping God in heaven although that is a possible understnaing. No, a more plausible understanding is that our Christian life (all Christians; even Husbands and Wives) by our witness to Christ and his kingdom will be example to strangers who maybe in some way God messengers (Anglos; ‘angels’). And the scriptures bare this out with clarity in these words “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” Hebrews 13:2. And from this there is a positive and a negative side:
First, the positive, if the believers are acting in accordance to bible norms of how they are to conduct their live then that will leave a good effect on one who comes as a spectator. Second, in the negative, whereas, if the believers are lawless and very poor in their spirit (in term of conduct); it will equally leave an effect on others.
The third example
God in the Old Testament commands...
Exodus 16:29 Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."
Here it says that everyone must stay where they are on the Sabbath. However, what does that mean? How literal should we interpret this command to be? If someone is in his bedroom does that mean he can't go to the living room? Can the person wander freely in his house? Can he go out to his backyard? How about roam around the city ensuring that he doesn't pass its outskirts? This verse is not clear on its own.
Of course, if one is to isolate the verse from it overall context, then it will become very unclear. But when it is placed in its context the meaning and point becomes very clear. So allow us to consider it’s context:
On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, he said to them, “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’” So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.”On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? See! The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” So the people rested on the seventh day. (Exodus 16)
When one consults the context— we learn that it is not so much an instruction than a rebuke of a defiant people. The Lord had said in verses 22-26 what they were to do, this involved working for 6 days and resting on the 7th. And we see at the beginning of verse 27 that they done the exact opposite of what the Lord commanded. They were not to do physical labour — but rest from such things. The Sabbath never meant that one could not freely roam and take care of their own persons.
This very thing is seen in the New Testament as well, when the Lord Jesus said that by his disciple take some corn to eat on a Sabbath was not breaking the Sabbath as Jesus points to the example of David and his companions. In the case of these men who defied Gods command in Exodus it was of a different manner, they were told before hand to gather enough for two days and do everything before the Sabbath and they went against God’s command by being greedy.
As for the constant drumbeat of “inconsistency” based on Bassam’s misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura— it does not say that the bible is ONLY authority; but that is the final Authority. And even more, it does not teach that every passage is equally clear but that on the doctrine and practice the bible is very clear in its teaching; whereas such peripheral matters as this— it does not need to be. And that is this man error.
