I understand that Islam teaches that Jesus is not God but only one of the prophets. Perhaps some Muslims think it is necessary to convince non-Muslims to believe this. I have no problem with that. After all, even Catholics will try to convince others of the truth of their religion. We will do what we think we need to do. However, doing what we need to do, i.e. spreading the truth, does not mean we are allowed to make fallacious arguments.
I have been surfing Youtube and stumbled on a few videos made by Muslims which supposedly show that the Bible does injustice to Jesus. Please note that I am not against Muslims or Islam, rather I would wish to point out the fallacious arguments these videos have made. I would also wish to correct fallacious arguments made by Christians. If anyone would wish to become Muslim, it is better to accept this religion not on the basis of fallacious arguments; otherwise, only stupid people would be able to accept it.
First, they claim the Koran considers Jesus to be a righteous and holy person; yet the Bible does injustice to Him because it describes Him as someone who calls certain people “hypocrites” and “snakes.”
The statement “Jesus is righteous” does not necessarily mean he does not call certain people “hypocrite.” A righteous person is someone who does righteous things, and calling hypocrites as “hypocrites,” even if they should be hurt by this, is simply saying what they are. Indeed, it is possible for a righteous person to do things which offend others, e.g. disagreeing with gay marriage and laws permitting abortion, but doing these things does not mean he has ceased to be righteous. In fact, a righteous person will offend many people, e.g. calling those who encourage gay marriage to be people who encourage evil.
Second, they pointed out the story about how Jesus challenged the crowd to throw stones at an adulteress only if they have no sin. From this story, they drew the conclusion that Jesus showed favoritism for the woman and that He was involved in adultery with the woman.
These claims seem too far-fetched. Isn’t this like saying that anyone who is a Muslim is a terrorist because of recent Muslim terrorist attacks around the world, or that anyone who is obese is a disgusting person with no self-control because most obese people you know have no self-control? It was a simple story about how to forgive and not judge, yet they stretched it into something completely vulgar.
Third, another vulgar interpretation of a scene in Jesus’ time on earth is when they claim that Jesus forgives based on erotic desire. The woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair supposedly gave Jesus a chance to experience sexual desire.
At this point, I had to laugh out loud. I’m sorry, but this is the stupidest understanding of this scene I have ever heard. This is like saying every man who shakes the hand of a woman gets a charge of erotic desire. Perhaps, but this is not the way Christians think. Unlike Muslims who depend heavily on external controls, e.g. segregation of the sexes, covering of women, etc., Christians focus on internal self-control. Though someone could feel a surge of sexual desire from even a small contact with the opposite sex, this ought to be properly controlled by the rational mind. This is why most Christian groups do not see the need to segregate the sexes and why Christian women are not required to cover up.
Take note, I am not trying to point out that one way is better than the other. I am simply pointing out the differences on Christian and Muslim ways of thinking. The argument presented in the video, of Jesus being treated unjustly because the Bible presented Him as having succumbed to sexual desire for a woman, does not make sense because for it to be acceptable the Muslim view of how the sexes must relate to each other must already be assumed. If the Christian attitude is retained, then the argument completely fails. Of course, from here it is possible to move to a debate about which attitude is correct, but that is not the main point here, is it?
Fourth, they pointed out the Bible saying that wine can deceive and whoever drinks it is not wise; yet Jesus made wine. How could Jesus make something which leads to sin?
Wine isn’t necessarily bad if it is consumed in reasonable amounts. The argument they presented is a slippery slope. If their argument is accepted, we can show that many things besides wine leads to evil, even the supposedly good things like vegetables and fruits. After all, eating too many vegetables and fruits can make one consume too many calories which will lead to obesity. If so, should we avoid eating them? We need to go back to the Christian attitude towards wine. This isn’t a bad thing, not haram as a Muslim would say.
Then they claimed that the “best wine” is the sort of wine which leads to immediate drunkenness after only drinking a small amount, ergo, so they say, the wine Jesus made led to everybody becoming drunk. The Bible didn’t give this definition of “best wine.” Further, this definition of “best wine” is debatable. A wine connoisseur would never give such a definition.
I reiterate that fallacious arguments must not be accepted for any reason. I am not against Muslims or Christians or even atheists sharing their views with the aim to convince others of their truth, but I am against fallacious arguments because they are an insult to our intelligence.