Christianity vs. Islam

Part Two: Islam’s Central Argument vs. Christianity’s Greatest Claim

By David Wood

Historically, scores of arguments have been offered in support of Islam and Christianity.  With the rise of skepticism in the West, this abundance of arguments has increased as both religious and secular belief systems have competed for the honor of being “The Most Reasonable System.”  Because there are so many arguments, interested seekers may sometimes get lost in the search, and the task of deciding between two competing systems may appear hopelessly difficult. 

One possible way of cutting through this difficulty is to find the most persuasive argument for each of the systems in question and to analyze these arguments carefully.  The purpose of this essay is to examine the strongest argument for Islam, and to contrast it with the strongest argument for Christianity.  This technique of comparison presents us with something of a “showdown” between the world’s two greatest (according to the numbers) religious systems.

Islam’s central apologetic has always been the Qur’an.  It is claimed that the Qur’an is so masterfully written, so brilliant and awe-inspiring in every detail, that it could only have come from God.  Indeed, this argument comes from the Qur’an itself:  “And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant [Muhammad], then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful” (2:23).[1]  In other words, if you can’t write something as good as a chapter of the Qur’an, you should quit doubting and accept it as the divine word of Allah.

In evaluating arguments it often helps to put an argument into its appropriate logical form.  In this case (as in the case of Christianity) the central argument can be put into a syllogistic pattern known as modus ponens.[2]  When put into this pattern, Islam’s strongest argument becomes the following syllogism:

1.      If unbelievers can’t produce something comparable to a chapter of the Qur’an, then it must be from God.

2.      Unbelievers can’t produce something equivalent to a chapter of the Qur’an.

3.      Therefore, it must be from God.

The syllogistic form of an argument is often helpful in that it allows us to investigate each of the premises individually so that we can know whether the conclusion has truly been established.  Applying this method to the Muslim argument, we see just how poor the case for Islam really is.  Consider the first premise:  “If unbelievers can’t produce something equivalent to a chapter of the Qur’an, then it must be from God.”  Apparently, the Muslim criterion for determining divine inspiration in a text is the impressiveness of its literary style.  Notice that this would be equivalent to saying, “If you can’t produce poems like T.S. Eliot, or plays like Shakespeare, or books like Charles Dickens, then you have to admit that these works come from God.”  Such a claim would seem ludicrous, but this is exactly what Muslims maintain when it comes to the Qur’an, and, again, it is their strongest argument.[3]  

The first premise of the Muslim argument, then, is apparently false (unless we are open to the idea that all of the world’s great authors and poets received their works from God).  There doesn’t seem to be a direct link between literary style and divine origin.  Since one of the premises is false (or, at the very least, impossible to establish) the argument fails.  But let’s examine the second premise anyway.  Premise two states that “Unbelievers can’t produce something comparable to a chapter of the Qur’an.”  Most people have never read a chapter of the Qur’an, so I will list a few chapters here.  (Yes, these chapters are extremely short.)

“Surely We have given you Kausar, Therefore pray to your Lord and make a sacrifice.  Surely your enemy is the one who shall be without posterity” (Surah 108).

“Say: O unbelievers!  I do not serve that which you serve, Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve: Nor am I going to serve that which you serve, Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion” (Surah 109).

“When there comes the help of Allah and the victory, And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies, Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is oft-returning (to mercy)” (Surah 110).

“Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.  His wealth and what he earns will not avail him.  He shall soon burn in fire that flames, And his wife, the bearer of fuel, Upon her neck a halter of strongly twisted rope” (Surah 111).

Here we have four consecutive chapters of the Qur’an.  Is there anything miraculous here?  Is there something so incredibly unique in these passages that any reasonable human being will be compelled to acknowledge their supernatural origin?  I don’t think there is.  In fact, the most unique thing about these passages is that they are extraordinarily unimpressive (considering what is being claimed about them).

Hence, the legitimacy of Islam hangs primarily on a syllogism with two false premises.  It is difficult to imagine how people could ever be convinced by such an argument, yet Islam has grown dramatically over the past thirteen centuries and is currently the second largest religion in the world.  The largest is Christianity, which is founded on a different argument.

In Acts 17, Paul says that God “has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.  He has given proof of this to all men by raising him [Jesus] from the dead” (v. 31).  Putting this argument in logical form, we arrive at the following:

1.      If Jesus rose from the dead, then his message was from God.

2.      Jesus rose from the dead.

3.      Therefore, his message was from God.

Whereas Muhammad argued that remarkable literary style was proof of divine inspiration, Paul maintained that resurrection was proof of divine inspiration.  The truth of the first premise of the Christian argument seems self-evident.  One may object by pointing out that Jesus raised people from the dead, and that we don’t conclude that these people had a message from God.  But this misses the point.  Unlike the other people who were raised from death, Jesus made some extraordinary claims about himself, some of which are even granted by Muslims.  So the question for us is “Would God raise a heretic from the dead?”  I think Muslims and Christians would agree that he would not.  Thus, if Jesus’ claims weren’t heresy, what were they?  They must have been true.  The first premise, then, makes sense in light of what we know about God.

This brings us to the second premise:  “Jesus rose from the dead.”  Unlike the first premise, this one isn’t self-evident.  Rather, it is a matter of historical investigation.  The interesting thing is that the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is exceptionally good.  Other articles on this website cover this evidence in much greater detail; however, we may note that there are a number of facts that can be established surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ, which, when combined, can only be accounted for by Jesus’ physical resurrection from the dead.  Consider the following list of historical facts compiled by Dr. Gary Habermas:

(1) Jesus died due to the severity of crucifixion and (2) was then buried.  (3) His death caused the disciples to lose hope and experience despair.  (4) Although not recognized to the same degree as the other findings here, most scholars seem to hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty just a few days later.

Critical scholars even acknowledge that (5) the disciples then had real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.  (6) These experiences transformed the disciples from apprehensive followers who were afraid to identify with Jesus into bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection, even being willing to die for this belief.  (7) This resurrection message was central in early Christian preaching and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus had died shortly before.

Accordingly, (9) the Christian church was established and grew, (10) featuring Sunday as the primary day of worship.  (11) James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he believed he also saw the resurrected Jesus.  (12) Saul of Tarsus, the famous persecutor of the church, became a Christian a couple of years later after an experience that he, similarly, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.[4]

We could explore this issue much more thoroughly, but to do so would be beyond the scope of this article.  The point to be made is that, whereas Islam’s best argument is based on two false premises, Christianity’s greatest claim is based on one self-evident premise and another premise that can be investigated historically.  This means that we can know by a careful examination of the evidence whether Christianity is true.  Yet Islam has absolutely nothing resembling such an argument.  Therefore, anyone who is interested in having a system of belief that is supported by the evidence will have to consider Christianity, for the Christian faith, in declaring itself to be founded upon a historical event, has opened itself up for such investigation.  However, those who are looking for a reasonable faith will certainly have to look somewhere besides Islam.  Like it or not, Islam doesn’t have a strong argument in its ranks, and will therefore always lose in a showdown with Christianity.