Understanding the use of Circular Reasoning in Islam

Hello again! Tackling a bit of a different issue this time.

I’d like to start off by talking about Christianity actually, which may seem odd, but it is our worldview, and sometimes we like to read our worldview onto other people’s worldviews when we shouldn’t. This is what sometimes happens with Islam and with people’s understanding of it.

Let’s talk about what we believe about our Scriptures. When we describe how the Bible was written, we use the term verbal, plenary inspiration. Here’s a short definition of the two:

By Verbal inspiration is meant that, in the original writings, the Spirit guided in the choice of the words used. However, the human authorship was respected to the extent that their own characteristics are preserved, their style and vocabulary are employed, but without the intrusion of error.
            By Plenary inspiration is meant that the accuracy which verbal inspiration secures, is extended to every portion of the Bible so that it is in all its parts both infallible as to truth and final as to divine authority. This, as has been stated, is the traditional doctrine of the church and that set forth by Christ and the Apostles. This teaching preserves the dual authorship in a perfect balance, ascribing to each that consideration which is accorded it in the Bible. (Chafer, Lewis S. “Bibliology.” Bibliotheca Sacra: Accordance Bible Software Edition 94:376, Oct 37. 407- 408.)

So this is the view typical of conservative Protestant Christianity. Basically, we believe the Holy Spirit worked through the Biblical authors in a way that what was written was sincerely their own words, from their own perspective, but done under the inspiration of the Spirit so that the words can be stated to be His own, and thus perfect and infallible. The Bible was not simply handed to the authors by an angel, nor did God dictate it to them.

Ok, so now let’s talk about Islam. It is easy for us to look at Islamic references that make incorrect portrayals of Christianity (Ohh… we’ll get to that in a second) and say, “Look, Mohammed got it wrong, he was a false prophet.” The problem is, they don’t view the Qur’an that way. They do not believe in inspiration. What Islam teaches is that the Qur’an was handed to Mohammed by Allah, and has existed as Allah’s word from all eternity. Therefore, what you read in the Qur’an is not at all influenced by Mohammed, but is indeed the very word of Allah.

Now, of course I couldn’t talk about this without bringing up the inconsistency therein. Islam has the problem of circular reasoning when trying to defend itself. Islam works by dictation. What is commanded, what is told, that is Law, and you cannot question. The Qur’an states that it is from Allah, therefore you are not allowed to question its authority or its veracity. This is why the level of scholasticism within Christianity (which is the basis of scholasticism in the Western world) is much, much more developed than in Islam. I can think of one debate between a Christian and a Muslim where the Christian apologist continued asking the Muslim cleric questions concerning the Greek constructions in the New Testament. The Muslim man’s response, more than once was that it didn’t matter, because “Jesus didn’t speak Greek,” he spoke Arabic! How does he know this, apart from all historical sources and scholastic research? The Qur’an says so. According to them, Jesus was a Muslim, no different than the man speaking. (If you wish to view the debate, it is James White vs. Jalal Abualrub, do a YouTube search.)

Christianity, on the other hand, is filled with people asking questions of the Bible. It is the reason we have very developed systems of Bibliology, Hermeneutics, as well as all kinds of Creeds, Synods, Councils, and Confessions. It is the reason we have archeology backing up our claims. It is the reason we have all kinds manuscript testimony, along with scholars who know the manuscripts inside and out. We want to authenticate our beliefs, as well as the Scriptures themselves. For Islam, this is not a choice. The Qur’an says it is from Allah, therefore they do not discuss manuscript diversity or theological continuity issues the way we do. So lets look at a couple examples of Islamic circular reasoning.

Q) How do we know Mohammed existed if there is no record of him outside of the Qur’an?

A) The Qur’an says he existed.

Q) Why are we to trust the Qur’an’s testimony?

A) Because it is from Allah.

Q) How do we know it is from Allah?

A) His Prophet, Mohammad, peace be upon him, delivered it to us from Allah.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. There is no real hard evidence for the existence of Mohammed outside the Qur’an. Now, to be sure, I’m not trying to say he never existed, I’m just simply saying that we have no evidence of him outside the Qur’an, from his contemporaries. His existence is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and oral traditions (some contradictory) contained in the sira and Hadith. The proof that the Qur’an is from Allah is based on him, and so on and so forth. This is circular reasoning. The evidence cited is the very thing that is brought under question.

Now for the second circular issue, taken from the first one.

Q) How do we know the Qur’an is from Allah?

A) His Prophet, Mohammad, peace be upon him, delivered it to us from Allah.

Q) How do we know he received it from Allah, since no one witnessed it?

A) Because the Qur’an says so.

First, we attacked the historicity of The Prophet. Now we attack the historicity of the Qur’an. Both fail to circular reasoning. Now, I do want to address an issue that pertains to the Bible, that if you’re reading with a discerning mind, you’ve already picked up on. “We believe in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and have no evidence of them outside of Scripture. How is this any different?” The difference between us and them has to do with the origin of our Scriptures. That is why it is so vitally important to understand inspiration, as well as why our doctrine is so beautifully rich. Yes, we take the works by faith. No doubt. There is no true evidence of the historical nature of several books, particularly Genesis. But when we cite oral tradition, we cite the inspired nature of the Bible. When Jesus or one of the Gospel authors cite Genesis, or Isaiah, or Ruth, we can draw a line back through them all and see how they are connected, one to another, and understand that because the historical value of one is assured, so are the others. Because our Bible is inspired, not handed down. Whoever wrote Genesis, probably Moses, received it by oral tradition, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down. The other authors of Scripture are authenticating the words because their words are also inspired. When Jesus said that God created them “man and woman,” we can know that there really was an Adam and Eve, because we know who Jesus was, and what he did. With Islam, they do not have that authentication. One Prophet, one source, one eyewitness, and they are all the same person. And when a mistake is made, the Prophet is not to blame, it is Allah himself. Let’s look at that now.

Before I get into the last circular problem, let’s once again talk about Christian doctrine. As Christians, we believe that God is triune. That is, He is three Persons within one Godhead. Christians are Monotheistic Trinitarians. We have been since the council of Nicea in 325 (only in reference to history; in reality you can’t be a Christian without being Trinitarian, and the true Church has always been Trinitarian, even if they didn’t systematize it). Muslims are Monotheistic Unitarians. They believe in one God who is only one Person.

Now remember what we said in reference to dictation. You do a search on YouTube of debates between Islamic and Christian scholars and listen to what Islam says of Christianity. They will consistently assert we believe in three Gods, not One. Why?

Surah 5:72-

They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

Now let me explain; what is meant here is not a denial of the Trinity as we understand it. What this is saying is that they deny God is Three (hence “third of three”). This Surah is declaring that Christians believe in three gods. They do not believe that Christians are Trinitarians in the sense that we believe we are. They do not understand that there is a difference between “One Essense (homoousia),” and “Persons.” The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each three individuals distinct from one another, but one essence, and hence one God, coequal with one another.

I hope you see what I’m getting at.

Q) Why are Christians (“People of the Book”) considered infidels?

A) Because they believe Allah is Three, not One.

Q) How can you say that if their history says otherwise?

A) Because it is impossible for God to be Three and One. They believe that God is Three.

Q) But they say they believe God is Three in One. How can you say otherwise?

There is no answer at this point. The supplied answer is that the Qur’an says so. So, here we find the final breakdown in Islamic theology: Allah himself was wrong about what Christians believe. If Muhammad was the writer, we could simply say that Muhammad misunderstood Christians, but that isn’t the case; he did not write the Qur’an. If the Qur’an was delivered during Muhammad’s time (570ad – 632ad), and Allah was writing to the people of Muhammad’s time, then he would have accurately portrayed what Christians believed at the time (remember Nicea?). Why would he address a people that didn’t exist? If Christians didn’t believe that God was Three, then why address them as if they did? The error is on the part Allah.

In conclusion, according to the circular reasoning of Islamic apologists, as well as their doctrine of the passing down of the Qur’an to Muhammad, we can say that Allah either got Christian doctrine incorrect, or that he did not know what Christians believed.  Both facts point to the probability that, of course, Muhammad wrote the Qura’an. Most likely, he did not have access to the whole of the Christian Bible, and was unfamiliar with the Council of Nicea. His access to Christianity would have been the scant conversations he had with them as he traveled the merchant trails.

I hope this has been helpful to you. If you wish to listen to Islamic apologists yourself, and hear their reasoning first hand, visit “Dr. Oakley” (Dr. James White) on YouTube. On his channel, you can find many of his debates with Islamic apologists on various subjects.

Study hard,

Mike