Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 36

Rebutting Dr.

Zakir Naik's Mis-Conception of God in Christianity

Sam Shamoun

The following article is our response to Dr. Zakir Naiks misguided polemic
titled Concept of God in Christianity:

Naik:

I Position of Jesus (pbuh) in Islam:

(i) Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to
believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus
(pbuh).

Response:

Bahaism is the only non-Muslim faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe
not just in Jesus but believe in Muhammad as well. No Bahai is a Bahai if he does
not believe in either Jesus or Muhammad. What does this prove? Absolutely
nothing! ... apart from demonstrating the weakness of Naiks logic and exposing
his ignorance about even the simplest facts of other religions, this time the above
claim to Islam's uniqueness in being "theonly non-Christian faith, which ..."

Naik:

(ii) We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt).

Response:

Bahais also believe that both Jesus and Muhammad were two of the mightiest
Messengers of Allah. Again, this proves absolutely nothing. In case Naik claims
that Bahaism is nothing more than a heretical sect of Islam, we only need to
remind him that there are those who feel that Islam itself is nothing more than a
heretical sect of Christianity. If Naik denies that Islam is a heretical sect of
Christianity but is a revelation from God, we only need to remind him that Bahais
also deny that Bahaism is a heretical sect of Islam but a revelation given by God as
well.

Naik:

(iii) We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention,
which many modern day Christians do not believe.

Response:
Naik fails to inform his readers that many modern day Muslims also deny Jesus
virginal conception and birth. The late Maulana Muhammad Ali of the Lahore sect
of Ahmadiyya, itself a sect of Islam, states in regard to S. 3:43:

"... the whole history of Mary and Jesus was enveloped in darkness until the Holy
Qur'an announced their right position as two righteous servants of God and
rejected both extreme views, the Jewish view that Jesus was conceived in sin and
was illegitimate and the Christian view that he was God or Son of God Who had
entered Mary's womb. He was only what the Prophet described him to be in his
controversy with the Najran deputation when he said to them: 'Do you not know
that Jesus was conceived by a woman in the manner in which all women conceive?
Then she was delivered of him as women are delivered of their children? Then he
was fed as children are fed. Then he ate food and drank water and answered the
call of nature (as all mortals do)?' The deputation replied to all these questions in
the affirmative, on which the Prophet said: 'Then how can your claim (that he was
God or Son of God) be true?' (IJ). The Prophet's clear argument which even the
Christian deputation could not question settles the matter THAT JESUS WAS
CONCEIVED IN THE ORDINARY MANNER AND THAT MARY
BECAME A WIFE AND MOTHER IN THE ORDINARY WAY." (Ali, Holy
Qur'an - Arabic Text, English Translation & Commentary [Ahmadiyya Anjuman
Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. USA 1995], pp. 141-142, f. 422; bold and capital ours)

M. Ali also comments on S. 3:46 where the virginal conception of the Lord Jesus is
mentioned:

"... Only her espousal had yet been decided, and perhaps she had not been
informed of this when she was given the good news of a son being born to her.
Hence she says that man had not touched her yet. And she was told in reply, 'Even
so'; i.e., the child will be born by God brining about the circumstances which
result in the birth of a child. The words do not show that she would conceive
OUT OF THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE, for there is no doubt
Mary had other children, WHICH NO ONE SUPPOSES TO HAVE BEEN
CONCEIVED OUT OF THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE. Nor do
the words that follow prove anything beyond the simple fact that Mary must give
birth to a son in accordance with the prophecy. The whole of creation is brought
about, we are told again and again, by the Divine word Kun, yet no one supposes
that creation is not brought about ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF
NATURE." (Ibid., p. 143, f. 427; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Again, M. Ali's comments on S. 1920-21:

"... She conceived him in the ordinary way IN WHICH WOMEN CONCEIVE
CHILDREN; see 422." (Ibid., p. 587, f. 1537b; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Keeping in mind that this is the official view of the Lahore sect of the Ahmadiyya
movement implies that there are, at a minimum, many thousands in this group
alone, which do not hold to Jesus' virginal conception and birth and still claim to
be Orthodox Muslims.

Another prominent Muslim who denied Jesus' virginal conception and birth was
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Dr. William Campbell notes:

"In his very evenly balanced book, Islam - A Christian Perspective, Michael Nazir-
Ali of Pakistan writes as follows concerning the Muslim reformer Sir Syed Ahmad
Khan, 'Theologically Sir Syed was of deistic inclinations and held that God was
indeed the Ground of the Universe and it was he who had created nature and her
laws...God does not, however, interfere in the course of nature, and occasional
divine intervention in the affairs of man is ruled out altogether...
'Sir Syed denies the Qur'anic doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ,
holding that such a birth would be an interference in the course of nature and was,
therefore, impossible. In order to reconcile this a priori attitude with the testimony
of the Qur'an, he offers the somewhat feeble explanation that when the Qur'an
speaks of Mary's virginity it really means that she had intercourse only with her
husband! An examination of the Qur'anic texts show us the absurdity of such a
position, and it is indeed true that no competent commentator of the Qur'an has
attempted a denial of the fact that the Qur'an teaches her virginity.
'... Sir Syed repeatedly affirms his belief in the inerrancy of the Qur'an and pleads
only for a correct interpretation of it. In some cases it is quite clear, however, that
his deism will not be reconciled to the supernaturalism of the Qur'an.'"
(Campbell, The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science [Middle
East Resources 1992, ISBN 1-881085-00-7], pp. 92-93)

Furthermore, appealing to the masses of Muslims doesn't prove anything since the
majority do not determine truth. Naik is therefore committing the fallacy of ad
populum.

Naik:

(iv) We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh).

Response:

Bahais also believe that Jesus was the Messiah as well as affirming that
Muhammad was the Messenger of Allah. And? Does this mean that Naik will now
accept Bahaism as a revelation from God solely because Bahais believe in Jesus
and Muhammad?

Naik:
(v) We believe that he gave life to the dead with God's permission.

(iv) We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God's
permission.

Response:

Again, Naik fails to tell his readers that not all Muslims believe in Jesus miracles.
M. Muhammad Ali comments on Jesus' ability to create clay birds and breathing
into them whereby the clay objects then come to life:

"... The act of khalq (creating) in the sense of creation cannot be attributed to any
being except Allah. The Quran has laid the greatest stress upon this point. It again
and again speaks of the Divine Being as the creator of everything, so that
there is nothing of which any one else may be said to be a creator. And of those
who are taken as gods by any people, it says in particular that they do not create
anything, while they are themselves created (16:20; 25:3)." (Ibid., p. 144, f. 428;
bold emphasis ours)

How then does M. Ali explain away the miracle of Jesus creating clay birds and
bringing them to life? Ali tries to explain away the miracle by insisting upon an
allegorical interpretation:

"To understand the significance of this passage it is necessary to bear in mind that
the chief characteristic of Jesus' speeches is that he spoke in parables and
preferred to clothe his ideas in allegorical language... It is perfectly intelligible
if taken as a parable, but quite incomprehensible as a statement of fact. If on
the one hand a prophet's dignity is much above such actions as the making of clay
birds, on the other hand the act of creation is not attributable to any but the
Divine Being." (Ibid.; bold emphasis ours)

Ali doesn't just stop with the creation of clay birds. Ali goes so far as to allegorize
all the miracles attributed to Jesus in both the Quran and the Holy Bible. Ali even
appeals to the liberal wing of Christianity, one that denies the supernatural from
ever occurring, to support his case:

"... The miracle of Jesus' healing the sick has been rationally explained in the Enc.
Bib. By the Rev. T.K. Cheyne, who has shown that all the stories of healing of
the sick have arisen from the SPIRITUAL HEALING of the sick, as in Matt.
9:12: 'They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick": and as in
Jesus' message to John the Baptist: 'The blind receive their sight and the lame
walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor
have the Gospel preached to them' (Matt. 11:5). The concluding words clearly
show that the sick and the lame and the blind belong to the same category as the
poor to whom the Gospel is preached, being the poor in heart. Compare also Matt.
13:15: 'For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and
their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and
hear with their ears and should understand with their hearts, and should be
converted, and I should heal them.' Here the healingcannot refer but to healing of
the spiritual diseases. The Holy Qur'an gives a similar explanation of the healing of
the sick when, speaking of itself, it says that it is 'a healing for what is in the hearts'
(10:57), i.e. for the spiritual diseases. The prophet's healing is spiritual, not
healing of the physical diseases. The Qur'an speaks of the blind and the deaf
frequently, but it never means those who have lost the senses of seeing and
hearing. (Ibid., p. 145, f. 429; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And:

"... Last come those who are dead. The Qur'an says plainly that those who die
are not sent back to this world: 'Allah takes the souls at the time of their death,
and those that die not, during their sleep; then He withholds those on whom He has
passed the decree of death and sends others back till an appointed term' (39:42).
And again speaking of the dead: 'And before them is a barrier until the day they are
raised' (23:100). But the use of the word mauta, i.e. the dead, and their being
raised to life, is frequent in the Holy Qur'an in a spiritual sense: 'Is he who was
dead, then We raised to life... like him whose likeness is that of one in utter
darkness' (6:123). And again: 'O you who believe answer the call of Allah and His
Messenger when he calls you to which gives you life' (8:24). Similarly we have:
'Neither are the living and the dead alike; surely Allah makes whom He pleases
hear, and you cannot make those hear who are in the graves' (35:22). The
prophets are raised ONLY for quickening to life those who are spiritually
dead, and it is this quickening through Jesus Christ that the Holy Qur'an
refers here." (Ibid., f. 430; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The late orthodox Muslim scholar Muhammad Asad also denied the miracles of
Jesus and indirectly denied Christ's virginal conception and birth. Commenting on
Jesus' ability to fashion clay birds and give them life in S. 3:49 Asad states:

"... The noun tayr is plural of ta'ir ('flying creature' or 'bird'), or an infinitive noun
('flying') derived from the verb tara ('he flew'). In pre-Islamic usage, as well as in
the Qur'an, the words ta'ir and tayr often denote 'fortune' or 'destiny', whether good
or evil (as, for instance, in 7:131, 27:47 or 36:19, and still more clearly in 17:13).
Many instances of this idiomatic use of tayr and ta'ir are given in all the
authoritative Arabic dictionaries; see also Lane V, 1904 f. Thus, in THE
PARABOLIC MANNER so beloved by him, Jesus intimated to the children of
Israel that out of the humble clay of their lives he would fashion for them the
vision of a soaring destiny and that this vision, brought to life by his God-given
inspiration, would become their real destiny by God's leave and by strength of their
faith (as pointed out at the end of this verse)." (Asad, The Message of the
Qur'an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited, 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar, rpt. 1993], p. 74, f.
37; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And:

"... It is probable that the 'raising of the dead' by Jesus is a METAPHORICAL


DESCRIPTION of his giving new life to people who were spiritually dead... If
this interpretation is - AS I BELIEVE - correct, then the 'healing of the blind and
the leper' has a similar significance: namely, an inner regeneration of people who
were spiritually diseased and blind to the truth." (Ibid., f. 38; bold and capital
emphasis ours)

Asad also comments on S 19:30 regarding Jesus' ability to speak while still in the
cradle:

"... Although the Qur'an mentions in 3:46 that Jesus would 'speak unto men [while
yet] in his cradle' - i.e., would be imbued with wisdom FROM HIS EARLY
CHILDHOOD - verses 30-33 seem to be in the nature of the trope, projecting the
shape of things TO COME by using, for the sake of emphasis, the past tense to
describe something that WAS TO BECOME REAL IN THE FUTURE..."
(Ibid., p. 460, f. 23; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And:

"... Since IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE that anyone could be granted divine


revelation and made a prophet before attaining to full maturity of intellect and
experience, 'Ikrimah and Ad-Dahhak - as quoted by Tabari - interpret this passage
as meaning, 'God has decreed (qada) that He would vouchsafe unto me
revelation...' etc., regarding it as an allusion to THE FUTURE. Tabari himself
applies the same interpretation to the next verse, explaining it thus: 'He has decreed
that He would enjoin upon me prayer and charity'. However, the whole of this
passage (verses 30-33) may also be understood as having been uttered by Jesus
AT A MUCH LATER TIME - namely, after HE HAD REACHED
MATURITY and been actually entrusted with his prophetic mission: that is to
say, it may be understood as an anticipatory description of the ethical and moral
principles which were to dominate the adult life of Jesus and particularly his deep
consciousness of being only 'a servant of God'." (Ibid, f. 24; bold and capital
emphasis ours)

While commenting on the Quranic use of the title al-Masih in relation to Jesus,
Asad claims:

"... Its application to Jesus may have been due to the widespread conviction among
his contemporaries (references to which are found in several places in the Synoptic
Gospels) that he was descended in direct - and obviously legitimate - line from the
royal House of David. (It is to be noted that this COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
RELATED TO HIS MOTHER'S SIDE, because Mary belonged to the priestly
class descending from Aaron, and thus the tribe of Levi, while David descended
from the tribe of Judah.)..." (Ibid., p. 73, f. 32)

Implicit in Asad's assertion is a denial of the virgin birth. To say that Jesus was a
legitimate descendent of David yet not through his mother implies that Jesus had a
human father from which Christ traced his Davidic lineage. This denial of Jesus'
virgin conception and birth is further implied by Asad's note to S. 19:19-21
regarding Mary's response to the Spirit's annunciation that she will have a son:

"... In connection with the announcement of a son to Mary, the Qur'an states in
3:47 that 'when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, "Be" - and it is'; but
since neither the Qur'an nor any authentic Tradition tells us anything about
the chain of causes and effects (asbab) which God's decree 'Be' was to bring
into being, all speculation as to the 'how' OF THIS EVENT MUST REMAIN
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF A QUR'AN-COMMENTARY..." (Ibid., p. 459, f.
15; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Much like Christians have to deal with a liberal wing of Christianity that denies the
supernatural, Muslims are also forced to deal with liberals in their midst.

Naik:

II CONCEPT OF GOD IN CHRISTIANITY:

1. Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity

One may ask, if both Muslims and Christians love and respect Jesus (pbuh), where
exactly is the parting of ways? The major difference between Islam and
Christianity is the Christians' insistence on the supposed divinity of Christ (pbuh).
A study of the Christian scriptures reveals that Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity.
In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus
(pbuh) himself says, "I am God" or where he says, "worship me". In fact the Bible
contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the
contrary. The following statements in the Bible are attributed to Jesus Christ
(pbuh):

Response:

One may ask if in fact Naik has actually read the Holy Bible in context or simply
plagiarizes the outdated arguments of his mentor, Ahmad Deedat. The real
difference between Islam and Christianity is the Muslim insistence that the
Christian Scriptures cannot unequivocally teach what they in fact teach, namely the
Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The answer to Naik's claim that Jesus never
unequivocally states that he is God and that he is to be worshiped is rather simple.
Jesus' statements must be understood within the historical setting of first century
Palestinian Judaism. For Christ to simply come out and say that He was God
without qualification would have implied that Jesus was claiming to be the Father
in heaven, since to first century Jews the term "God" meant the One in heaven.
Yet, Jesus is not the same person as the Father. Rather, both the Father and Christ
are distinct Persons that share one essence and nature equally.

Christ had to first safeguard the distinction of Persons within the Godhead, that he
and the Father are two distinct Persons, before claiming divinity. Otherwise, had
Christ simply just come out and said that he was God the Jews would have thought
that Christ was claiming to be the Father in heaven. The late NT scholar Raymond
E. Brown states it best:

"The question concerns Jesus a Galilean Jew of the first third of the first
century, for whom 'God' would have a meaning specified by his background
and the theological language of the time. By way of simplification (and perhaps
oversimplification) let me say that I think by a Jew of that period `God' would
have been thought of as One dwelling in the heavens - among many attributes.
Therefore, a question posed to Jesus on earth, `Do you think you are God?' would
mean did he think he was the One dwelling in heaven. And you can see that
would have been an inappropriate question, since Jesus was visibly on earth.
As a matter of fact the question was never asked of him; at most he was asked
about his relationship to God." (Brown, Responses to 101 Questions on the
Bible [Paulist Press; Mahwah, N.J. 1990], p. 98; bold emphasis ours)

Once the distinction of Persons within the Godhead had been safeguarded, both
Christ and his followers could allow for the term "God" to be used of Christ. It is
interesting to note that the first time anyone addresses Jesus as God is only after
the resurrection when Christ had already clarified the distinction of Persons within
the Godhead and, more specifically, the distinction that exists between him and the
Father:

"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world.
Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'
The Pharisees challenged him, 'Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your
testimony is not valid.' Jesus answered, 'Even if I testify on my own behalf, my
testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you
have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human
standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are
right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your
own Law it is written that the testimony of TWO MEN is valid. I am one who
testifies for myself; my OTHER WITNESS is the Father, who sent me.'" John
8:12-18
"Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go
instead to my brothers and tell them, "I am returning to my Father and your
Father, to my God and your God"'... Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the
Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told
him, 'We have seen the Lord!' But he said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in
his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I
will not believe it.' A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas
was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them
and said, 'Peace be with you!' Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see
my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and
believe. Thomas said TO HIM, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him,
'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not
seen and yet have believed.' Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the
presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written
that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by
believing you may have life in his name." John 20:17, 24-31

Brown continues:

"... I would say that by that time (i.e. the last decade of the first century), under the
impact of their quest to understand Jesus, Christians had in a certain sense
expanded the meaning of the word 'God.' It no longer for them simply
covered the Father in heaven; it covered the Son on earth. They had come to
realize that Jesus was so intimately related to God, so filled with God's
presence, that the term God was applicable to him as it was to the Father in
heaven. May I emphasize that this does not involve a change in Jesus; it involves a
change and growth in the Christian perception of who he was." (Ibid.; bold
emphasis ours)

Brown rightly concludes:

"Did Jesus have an identity which his followers later came to understand in terms
of his being God? If he was God (and most Christians do agree on that), did he
know who he was? I think the simplest answer to that question is yes." (Ibid., p.
99; bold emphasis ours)

NT scholar Murray J. Harris gives additional reasons why within the NT scriptures
the term "God" is infrequently used for Christ:

"First, in all strands of the NT, theos generally signifies the Father... When we
find the expression theos pater we may legitimately deduce that ho theos estin ho
pater. And since pater refers to a particular person (not an attribute), the identity
between ho theos and ho pater as proper names referring to persons must be
numerical. 'God' must be equated with 'the Father.' If Jesus were everywhere
called theos so that in reference to him the term ceased to be a title and
became a proper noun like 'Iesous, linguistic ambiguity would be everywhere
present.

"Another reason why theos regularly denotes the Father and rarely the Son is that
such a usage is suited to protect the personal distinction between the Son and
Father... which is preserved everywhere in the NT, but nowhere more
dramatically than where the Father is called 'the God of our Lord Jesus Christ'
(Eph. 1:17) or 'his God and Father' (Rev. 1:6) and where Jesus speaks of 'My God'
(Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; cf. Rev. 3:2, 12), or, in an address to Jesus
reference is made to 'your God' (Heb. 1:9). God was the one to whom Jesus prayed,
the one he called his Father (e.g., Matt. 11:25). It was ho logos, not ho theos, of
whom John said sarx egeneto (John 1:14).

"Clearly related to this second reason is a third. The element of 'subordinationism'


that finds expression not only in the four authors who use theos as a christological
appellation but also elsewhere in the NT may have checked any impulse to
use theos regularly of Jesus. By customarily reserving the term theos for the
Father, NT writers were highlighting the fact, whether consciously or
unconsciously, that while the Son is 'subordinate' to the Father, the Father is
not 'subordinate' to the Son. One finds the expression 'the Son of God' where
God is the Father, but never 'the Father of God' where God is the Son.

"A fourth reason that may be suggested for the comparatively rare use of theos as a
christological ascription was the danger recognized by the early church that
if theos were applied to Jesus as regularly as to the Father, Jews would have
tended to regard Christianity as incurably deuterotheological and Gentiles
would probably have viewed it as polytheistic. If theos were the personal name
of the Father and the Son, Christians would have been hard pressed to defend
the faith against charges of ditheism, if not polytheism, however adamant
their insistence on their retention of monotheism.

(NOTE- This is precisely the charge leveled against Christians by Muslims,


namely that Muslims claim that the Christian use of the term "God" for Christ
proves that Christians invariably worship more than one God and are therefore
polytheists)

"Fifth, behind the impulse generally to reserve the term theos for the Father lay the
need to safeguard the real humanity of Jesus against docetic or monophysitic
sentiment in its embryonic form. In the early years of the church there was a
greater danger that the integrity of the human 'nature' of Jesus should be
denied than that his divinity should be called into question, witness the fact
that docetism not Arianism was the first christological deviation.

"Finally, the relative infrequency of the use of theos for Jesus corresponds to the
relatively infrequent use of ontological categories in NT Christology which is
functional in emphasis..." (Harris,Jesus As God - The New Testament Use of
Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI 1998], pp. 282-283;
bold emphasis ours)

Finally, to see the inherent weakness in Naik's statement that since Christ never
said that he was God or that one should worship him Christians are therefore
wrong in claiming that Jesus is God, we turn the tables against Naik. We challenge
Naik to produce one unequivocal statement from the Quran where Jesus (allegedly)
says that he is not God, the Son of God, that people should not worship him, or that
he did not come to die for sinners. We will not accept anything but the alleged
words of Jesus himself as recorded in the Quran. In case Naik tries to cite S. 5:116-
117 where Jesus allegedly denies his divinity we only need to remind Naik that this
verse actually proves that the Quran contains a gross error. Here is the passage
itself:

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto
men, TAKE ME AND MY MOTHER FOR TWO GODS BESIDE ALLAH?"
He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I
said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my
heart, Though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is
hidden. Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to
wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst
I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over
them, and Thou art a witness to all things."

Since Christians do not believe and have never claimed that Jesus commanded his
followers to venerate both him and his mother as TWO GODS APART FROM
GOD, we see that the Quran is grossly mistaken regarding what historic
Christianity actually teaches. Rather, the historical Jesus commanded his followers
to honor him as they honor the Father:

"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the
Son, in order that all may honor the Son, EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE
FATHER. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent
Him." John 5:22-23

Jesus doesn't say to honor him as a great religious figure or prophet. Rather, he
demands to be given the very same honor that the Father receives. The way
believers honor the Father is to both worship and make supplications to him.
Amazingly, we find Jesus requesting that prayers be made directly to him:

"And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be
glorified in the Son. If you ask ME anything in My name, I will do it." John
14:13-14
For Jesus to be able to hear and grant the request of prayers offered directly to him
implies that he is both omniscient and omnipotent. Since these are qualities that are
true only of God, this indicates that Jesus did claim to be God.

And,

"But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things
he did and the children shouting in the temple area, 'Hosanna to the Son of
David,' they were indignant. 'Do you hear what these children are saying?' they
asked him. 'Yes,' replied Jesus, 'have you never read, "From the lips of children
and infants you have ordained praise?"'" Matthew 21:15-16

Amazingly Jesus applies Psalm 8:2 to himself a passage where it is Yahweh who is
receiving the praise of infants and children!:

"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set
your glory above the heavens. From the lips of children and infants you have
ordained praise because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger."
Psalm 8:1-2

Jesus is claiming that to praise him is to praise Yahweh God! The only way for this
quotation from the Psalm to count as valid justification for Jesus to confirm and
encourage the praise of his own person from the children, is the assumption that
Jesus was identifying himself with Yahweh God.

The Lord Jesus also taught his disciples that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
make up the unity of the one true God:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them
to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to
the very end of the age.'" Matthew 28:18-20

Three distinct Persons share the name (singular) of the one true God. Jesus also
claims omnipresence, an attribute belonging to God alone. This again affirms that
Jesus did in fact claim to be God.

Therefore, S. 5:116-117 cannot be used to answer our question regarding Naik


finding a single verse in the Quran where Jesus denied being God Almighty, not
where Jesus denies that he is another god apart from the true God. We eagerly
await Naik's answers to the questions posed above.

Naik:
(i) "My Father is Greater than I."
[The Bible, John 14:28]

(ii) "My Father is greater than all."


[The Bible, John 10:29]

Response:

First, Naik commits a categorical fallacy, confusing nature with position. Historic
Trinitarianism based on the inspired word of God has always believed that the
Father and the Son are equal in nature and essence, but not inposition. Hence, they
are equal in one sense yet in another sense the Father is greater than the Son.
Robertson in his Word Pictures of the New Testament explains:

I go away, and I come (upagw kai ercomai), both futuristic presents (7:33;
14:3,18). If ye loved me (ei hgapate me). Second-class condition with the
imperfect active of agapaw referring to present time, implying that the disciples are
not loving Jesus as they should. Ye would have rejoiced (ecarhte an). Second aorist
passive indicative of cairw with an, conclusion of second-class condition referring
to past time, "Ye would already have rejoiced before this" at Christ's going to the
Father (verse 12). Greater than I (meizwn mou). Ablative case mou after the
comparative meizwn (from positive mega). The filial relation makes this
necessary. Not a distinction in nature or essence (cf. 10:30), but in rank in the
Trinity. No Arianism or Unitarianism here. The very explanation here is
proof of the deity of the Son (Dods).

Dr. Robert A. Morey continues:

"Subordination, in the context of the economical Trinity, does not pose any
difficulty whatsoever for the Trinitarian. The Father is 'greater' than the Son by
virtue of His office of being the Sender and Jesus the Sent (John 14:28). That
the Father is greater in rank does not logically imply that He is better in nature."
(Morey, Trinity - Evidence and Issues [World Publishing; 1996], p. 439; bold
emphasis ours)

That the term "greater" (Greek - meizon) does not necessarily imply one who is
greater in nature or essence, but rather greater in position, can be seen from the
following passages where the same Greek word is used:

"I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen
anyone greater (Greek - meizon) than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the
kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Matthew 11:11
The fact that John is greater than all those born of women does not imply that the
rest were less human than John, or that they were inferior to John in nature. Here,
the term "greater" refers to John's position.

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He
will do even greater (Greek - meizona) things than these, because I am going to the
Father." John 14:12

Jesus' disciples did not perform better works, but performed a greater number of
works than Christ since they reached far more people than Jesus did while he was
on earth. Hence, the term "greater" refers to quantity, the amount of works, as
opposed to quality since the disciples performed the same type of works but in far
greater number.

Second, Naik misapplies John 10:29 since the text does not say that the Father is
greater than Jesus. Jesus' point is that the Father is greater than all those who would
try to snatch the sheep out of the hands of both the Father and the Son:

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; NO ONE can snatch
them out of my Father's hand." John 10:29

The context shows that the Father is greater than any one who would try to oppose
God's purpose in preserving true believers from perishing. This point actually
demonstrates that Jesus did in fact claim to be God, equal with the Father in nature,
since Christ claims to be able to do what God alone can do:

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out
of my hand." John 10:28

Compare the claims made by Jesus with that made by Yahweh God in the OT:

"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I
bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my
hand." Deuteronomy 32:39

"The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises
up." 1 Samuel 2:6

In light of the preceding citations, notice the following syllogism:

A. God alone can raise the dead, give eternal life and prevent anyone from
thwarting his purpose in preserving believers from perishing.
B. Jesus raises the dead, gives eternal life, and is able to prevent anyone
from thwarting his purpose in preserving believers from perishing.
C. Therefore, Jesus is God.
Naik:

(iii) "I cast out devils by the Spirit of God..."


[The Bible, Mathew 12:28]

(iv) "I with the finger of God cast out devils..."


[The Bible, Luke 11:20]

Response:

Presumably, Naik falsely assumes that these verses rule out the fact that Jesus is
God since Christ only performed miracles by the power and Spirit of God. Yet,
Naik wrongly divides the word of God and does not read these passages within
both their immediate and greater context. Had Naik done so, he would have
discovered that the Holy Bible attributes the miracles to all three Persons of the
Godhead:

The Father:

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that
I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me
does His works. John 10:10

The Son:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and IN YOUR NAME drive out demons and perform many miracles?'"
Matthew 7:22

"'Teacher,' said John, 'we saw a man driving out demons IN YOUR NAME and
we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.' 'Do not stop him,' Jesus said.
"No one who does a miracle IN MY NAME can in the next moment say anything
bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.'" Mark 9:38-40

"And the seventy returned with joy, saying, `Lord, even the demons are subject
to us in Your name '... 'Behold I HAVE GIVEN YOU AUTHORITY to tread
upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and
nothing shall injure you.'" Luke 10:17, 19

"Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called
Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple
courts. When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. Peter
looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, 'Look at us!' So the man gave
them his attention, expecting to get something from them. Then Peter said, 'Silver
or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, walk.' Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly
the man's feet and ankles became strong. He jumped to his feet and began to
walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and
praising God... 'By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know
was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has
given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.'" Acts 3:2-8, 16

Jesus is able to empower others to perform miracles in his name. This is something
that only God can do, demonstrating quite clearly that Jesus is God.

The Holy Spirit:

But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come
upon you. Matthew 12:28

This is precisely what a Trinitarian expects to find, but a Muslim does not want to
discover.

Naik:

(v) "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just;
because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
[The Bible, John 5:30]

Response

Naik shows that he actually has no clue what Trinitarians actually believe. The
doctrine of the Trinity also entails believing that there are three eternally distinct
yet inseparable Persons who do not act independently from the others, but in
perfect unity. The three Persons of the Godhead do not function separately and
apart from the other members. Rather, they always work in perfect harmony.
Hence, historic Trinitarianism does not teach that the three distinct Persons seek
out their own personal initiatives since to do so would destroy the perfect and
inseparable unity of the Godhead.

Had Naik read this passage in context, as opposed to manhandling it in order to fit
his Islamic presuppositions, he would have realized that this is precisely Jesus'
whole point:

"Jesus said to them, `Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but
only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, THE SON
DOES LIKEWISE. The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is
doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be
astonished. Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, SO
ALSO THE SON GIVES LIFE TO WHOMEVER HE WISHES... I tell you
the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear THE
VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and those who hear will live. For as the
Father has life in himself, so he has granted THE SON TO HAVE LIFE IN
HIMSELF. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of
Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their
graves will hear HIS VOICE and come out - those who have done good will
rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John
5:19-21, 25-29 (cf. John 16:13)

Jesus does nothing on his own, but everything that his Father does he can do also.
Much like his Father, Jesus is able to give eternal life, raise the dead and judge all
men, and is self-existent. In order for Jesus to be able to do all the works that his
Father can do, he must be God since the Father does things that only God can do.

Naik:

2. The Mission of Jesus Christ (pbuh) to Fulfill the Law

Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity for himself. He clearly announced the nature
of his mission. Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God to confirm the previous Judaic law.
This is clearly evident in the following statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the
Gospel of Mathew:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever
shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness
of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
[The Bible, Mathew 5:17-20]

Response:

First, this passage does not teach that a person who breaks the least of Christ's
commands shall lose his salvation. Rather, the person shall be least in the kingdom,
implying that the person is still saved. The person suffers a loss of rewards, not a
loss of eternal life. Paul beautifully expounds upon this point in his first epistle to
the Corinthians:

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus
Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood,
hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to
light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he
will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the
flames." 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

Second, Christ demands that a person's righteousness must surpass that of the
Pharisees in order to attain salvation. The righteousness that Christ demands is that
of perfection:

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48

The only way to attain such perfection is to follow Christ. The Lord Jesus is able to
justify men by his perfect righteousness that is then imputed to the believer:

"I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you
to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place
among those who are sanctified BY FAITH IN ME." Acts 26:17-18

Hence, the righteousness demanded by Christ is a righteousness that only comes


from following him. This righteousness is humanly impossible to attain, and is
something received solely by faith in the Lord Jesus.

Third, Naik has grossly misunderstood Jesus' meaning that he came to fulfill the
Law. Fulfillment did not just entail Christ's perfect observance to the precepts of
the Law, but also included the spiritual completion and perfection that Jesus gives
to it. This is precisely what Jesus goes on to do in the verses that immediately
follow. (Cf. Matthew 5:21-48)

God designed the Law/Prophets to find their true completion and perfection in the
Messiah. Hence, Jesus' meaning was not that he had come to fulfill in the sense
that he came to simply obey, which he certainly did. Rather, it entailed fulfillment
in the sense of both interpreting and exegeting the Law, as well as fulfilling the
predictions made about the coming Messiah:

"Then he said to them, 'These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still
with you - that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets,
and the psalms must be fulfilled." Luke 24:44

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal
life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to
have life." John 5:39-40
"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on
whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me. For
he wrote about me." John 5:45-46

"For being ignorant of the righteousness that God ascribes (which makes one
acceptable to Him in word, thought and deed), and seeking to establish a
righteousness (as means of salvation) of their own, they did not obey or submit
themselves to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the Law- the limit at
which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its
types, and in Him the purpose in which it was designed to accomplish is
fulfilled. - That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him - as the means of
righteousness (right relationship to God) for everyone who trusts in and adheres
to and relies on Him." Romans 10:3-4 Amplified Bible

The OT itself predicted that all the nations would put their hope in the Law that the
Messiah would bring when he arrives:

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put
my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry
out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruise reed he will not break, and a
smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he
will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the
islands will put their hope." Isaiah 42:1-4

Hence, it is the Law of the Messiah as defined by the Lord Jesus, which is binding
upon all believers. This is the sense in which Jesus fulfills the Law, bringing it to
its desired goal. In order for Christ to bring the Law to its spiritual perfection, it
became necessary for him to both reinterpret and reinforce certain aspects of it,
purifying it from the false interpretation that had evolved around it by the religious
sects of his day.

Messianic Jew, David H. Stern, elaborates:

"It is true that Yeshua (Jesus) kept the Torah perfectly and fulfilled predictions of
the Prophets, but that is not the point here. Yeshua did not come to abolish but
'to make full' (plerosai) the meaning of what the Torah and the ethical demands
of the Prophets require. Thus he came to complete our understanding of
the Torah and the Prophets, so that we can try to more effectively be and do what
they say to be and do... The remainder of chapter 5 gives six specific cases in
which Yeshua explains the fuller spiritual meaning of points in the Jewish Law. In
fact, this verse states the theme and agenda of the entire Sermon on the
Mount, in which Yeshua completes, makes fuller, the understanding of
his talmidim (students) concerning the Torah and the Prophets, so that they can
more fully express what being God's people is all about." (Stern, Jewish New
Testament Commentary [Clarksville, Maryland; Jewish New Testament
Publications, 1996], pp. 25-26; bold emphasis ours)

Finally, Naik must have forgotten that the Quran affirms that part of Jesus' mission
was to abrogate certain aspects of the Law:

"(I have come to you), to attest to the Law which was before me and to make
lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you..." Sura 3:50

According to Wahb bin Munabbih, Jesus came to "relieve" the Jews "of some of
the hardships" which the Torah imposed on them. (Mahmoud M. Ayoub, The
Quran and Its Interpreters, Vol. II- The House of Imran, p. 149; bold emphasis
ours)

Qatadah states:

"The [Law] with which Jesus came was much more lenient than that which
Moses brought. The Law of Moses made unlawful for them to eat the flesh of
camel, the fat covering the stomach of an animal, and some birds and fish." (Ibid.)

These commands were made lawful by Jesus according to al-Qummi (Ibid., p. 150)

In the view of Ibn Kathir, the Quranic injunction indicates "that Jesus did indeed
abrogate some of the precepts of the Torah." (Ibid., p. 149)

Naik:

3. God Sent Jesus' (pbuh)

The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following
verses:

(i) "... and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."
[The Bible, John 14:24]

(ii) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou has sent."
[The Bible, John 17:3]

Response:

Naik presumes that since Jesus was sent by God and speaks the words of God,
Jesus therefore cannot be God. First, Naik is again assuming what he has yet to
prove, namely that God is a uni-personal Being. He also assumes that the Father
alone is the true God. Therefore, anytime God the Father is being distinguished
from Jesus this is automatically taken to mean that Jesus is not God. All this
simply proves is that Jesus is not the Father. It does not prove that Jesus is not
God in nature. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father, but rather is equal
to the Father in nature. Both the Father and Son are God in nature, but they are not
identicalin person.

Second, being sent or told what to say implies personal distinctions, that the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. This argument actually establishes
the Trinitarian view, namely that the One that is sent cannot be THE SAME
PERSON AS THE ONE WHO SENT HIM, precisely what the doctrine of the
Trinity teaches. Since there are three distinct Persons they can communicate and
have fellowship amongst themselves. This communication and fellowship is
eternal since all three Persons have coexisted together from eternity as the One
God. Cf. John 1:1-3; 8:23-24, 56-59; 17:5; Hebrews 9:14

The distinction in Persons also allows for one member of the Trinity to send
another to fulfill a specific task. Therefore, Naik again presents a straw man
argumentation since he is either misrepresenting or simply misunderstands what
the actual doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

Finally, these passages also refer to Christ's earthly ministry where he assumed the
role of a servant. Therefore, Jesus is using terminology suitable in highlighting his
role as the Father's servant who perfectly obeys his master's will.

Naik:

4. Jesus Refuted even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity

Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:

"And behold, one came and said unto him, 'Good Master, what good thing shall I
do, that I may have eternal life?' And he said unto him, 'Why callest thou me good?
There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments.'"
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]

Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should
believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus
(pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was
through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference
between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation
through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).

Response:
First, Jesus does not say "I am not good, only God is good." Rather, he asks the
rich man, "Why do you call me good?" The purpose behind Jesus' question was to
make the rich man aware of the implications of calling Christ good. To call Jesus
good is to make him God since only God is absolutely good. If the rich man really
believed this, he should be willing to abandon everything, including his riches, for
Jesus. This is precisely what Jesus goes on to say:

"Jesus answered, 'If you want TO BE PERFECT, go, sell your possessions and
give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, FOLLOW
ME.'" Matthew 19:21

Jesus demands a devotion that is to be given solely to God. It should be stated that
this request from Jesus was made right after the man had indicated his total
devotion to the Mosaic Law. For Jesus to then come back and demand that the man
should abandon all he has and follow him is either blasphemous, or affirms that
Jesus believed that he was God. That Christ did in fact believe he was absolutely
good, and therefore God, can be seen from the following statements of Jesus:

"I am the GOOD Shepherd. The good shepherd lays his life down for the
sheep... I am the GOOD Shepherd. I know my own and my own know me." John
10:11, 14

Not only is Jesus affirming his absolute goodness, but also applies a title of
Yahweh God to himself:

"Yahweh is my Shepherd, I shall not want." Psalm 23:1

"Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock!" Psalm 80:1
NRSV

Jesus also claims to be absolutely sinless, having no unrighteousness within him


whatsoever:

"Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the
glory of him who sent him is true, and there is nothing false in him." John 7:18

"And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do
what is pleasing to him." John 8:29

"Which of you convicts me of sin? ..." John 8:46

No one was able to point to a single sin that Jesus committed. For Jesus to be
absolutely good strongly argues the case that he is God. Note the following
syllogism:

A. Only God is absolutely good


B. Jesus is absolutely good
C. Therefore, Jesus is God.

Second, Jesus clearly claimed that eternal life is a gift granted only to those who
believe in him as the Son of God who came down from heaven to die for sinners:

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his
life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

"Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men
brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to
the paralytic, 'Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.'" Matthew 9:1-2

"Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up
behind him and touched the edge of his cloak. She said to herself, 'If I only touch
his cloak, I will be healed.' Jesus turned and saw her. 'Take heart, daughter,' he
said, 'your faith has healed you.' And the woman was healed from that moment."
Matthew 9:20-22

"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life
as a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to
his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave
thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood
of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"
Matthew 26:26-28

Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the
Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. When a woman who had lived a sinful
life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought
an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she
began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed
them and poured perfume on them... Then he turned toward the woman and said to
Simon, 'Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any
water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not
stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured
perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven-for
she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.' Then Jesus said
to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' The other guests began to say among themselves,
'Who is this who even forgives sins?' Jesus said to the woman, 'Your faith has
saved you; go in peace.' Luke 7:36-38, 44-50
"In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new
covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'" Luke 22:20

"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted
up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the
world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to
condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in
him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already
because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John 3:14-18

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has
eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
John 5:24

"'Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which
the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed HIS SEAL
OF APPROVAL.' Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God
requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
sent.'" John 6:27-29

(NOTE- Jesus claims here that he is God's seal, refuting the Quranic claim that
Muhammad is the seal of prophethood in S. 33:40.)

"Then Jesus declared, 'I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go
hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you
have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to
me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. FOR I HAVE COME
DOWN FROM HEAVEN not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent
me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has
given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone
who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise
him up at the last day.' At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he
said, 'I am the bread THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.' They said, 'Is
this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can
he now say, "I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN"?'" John 6:35-42

"I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." John 6:47

"'I am the living bread THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. If anyone eats
of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for
the life of the world.' Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves,
'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the
truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have
no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is
real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in
him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one
who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from
heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will
live forever." John 6:51-58

"On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, 'If
anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the
Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.' By this he
meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that
time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." John
7:37-39

"And He was saying to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of
this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your
sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.'" John 8:23-24
NASB

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will
live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.
Do you believe this?'" John 11:25-26

It is indeed striking to note the difference between Naik's false assertions regarding
Jesus' view of salvation with what Christ actually taught. Hence, we discover that
unlike Naik the Church has faithfully preserved and completely agrees with Jesus'
own view that salvation comes through faith in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ
on behalf of lost sinners.

Naik:

5. Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth a Man Approved of God

The following statement from the Bible supports the Islamic belief that Jesus
(pbuh) was a prophet of God.

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God
among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst
of you, as ye yourselves also know."
[The Bible, Acts 2:22]

Response:

Naik is guilty of both misrepresenting what Trinitarians actually believe and what
Peter actually taught in context. First, Trinitarians thoroughly believe that Jesus
was fully human, the epitome of human perfection, man as God intended for man
to be. Yet, the Lord Jesus was fully God at the same time.

Secondly, the apostle Peter does not deny that Jesus is God, nor does the text state
that Jesus was ONLY a man approved by God. Peter is emphasizing Jesus' role as
Yahweh's servant, fulfilling the predictions made by the Prophet Isaiah. (C.f. Isaiah
42:1-9, 49:1-7, 52:13-53:12)

Had Naik read Peter in context, he would have discovered that Peter proceeds to
acknowledge Jesus' Deity, his death on the cross for sinners, his bodily
resurrection, his ascension to heaven and that salvation comes by faith in Jesus
alone:

"This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and
you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death,
because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about
him: 'I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not
be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will
live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let
your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will
fill me with joy in your presence.' Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the
patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a
prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of
his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the
resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his
body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of
the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the
promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David
did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my
right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."' Therefore let all
Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both
Lord and Christ." Acts 2:23-36

"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before
Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. But you denied the Holy One and
the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed
the Author (archegos - Captain, Prince, Originator) of life whom God raised
from the dead, of which we are witnesses. By faith in the name of Jesus, this
man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith
that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can
all see." Acts 3:13-16 NKJV

To Peter, Jesus was not only a man but also the very Source of life itself.
"When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by
turning each of you from your wicked ways." Acts 3:26

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: 'Rulers and elders of the
people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a
cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of
Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but
whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is
"the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone." Salvation is
found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by
which we must be saved.'" Acts 4:8-12

"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: 'Brothers, you know that
some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from
my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed
that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He
made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a
yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is
through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.'" Acts
15:7-11

To summarize, Peter affirms:

Jesus' death, bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven where Christ
now sits at God's right hand.
That Jesus is the author of life.
That Jesus grants faith and repentance.
That Jesus' name is able to heal people miraculously.
That salvation is derived only from the authority of the Lord Jesus.
That salvation comes by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
That Jesus is the rejected stone of Psalm 118:22

The preceding points imply that Peter clearly believed that Jesus is Yahweh God!
This fact is solidified by what Peter elsewhere writes about the Lord Jesus:

"To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness
of our God and Savior Jesus Christ... for so an entrance will be supplied to you
abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
2 Peter 1:1, 11 NKJV

For Peter to identify Jesus as the Sovereign Lord God and Saviour of all believers
affirms that to the Apostle Jesus was in fact Yahweh God. Therefore, contrary to
the assertions of Naik, Peter was quite explicit in affirming the perfect and absolute
deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Naik:

6. The First Commandment is that God is One

The Bible does not support the Christian belief in trinity at all. One of the scribes
once asked Jesus (pbuh) as to which was the first commandment of all, to which
Jesus (pbuh) merely repeated what Moses (pbuh) had said earlier:

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad."

This is a Hebrew quotation, which means:

"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."


[The Bible, Mark 12:29]

Response:

Correction. The Holy Bible doesn't support Naik's gross misrepresentation of the
Trinity. It is therefore not surprising that Naik does not find the biblical evidence
for the Trinity seeing that he constantly attacks a straw man. The heart of
Trinitarianism is that God is in fact absolutely one. Yet, Naik confuses oneness
with singularity. He wrongly assumes that one by necessity precludes any type of
plurality. Not only is Naik's definition unbiblical, it is also wrong in light of the
modern use of the term one. Notice the manner in which the following dictionaries
define the term one:

ONE - IN PREGNANT SENSES. ONE made up of many components, a


united. (The Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition Moul-Ovum, 1989, p. 804)

ONE - Being a.) a single unit, object or entity. b.) Forming a single entity OF
TWO OR MORE COMPONENTS.

UNIT - An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary


structural or functional constituent of a whole. A group regarded as a distinct entity
within a larger group.

GROUP - An assemblage of persons or objects located or gathered together: Two


or more figures COMPRISING A UNIT or a design, as in sculpture. A number
of things or individuals considered together because of similarities. (Webster's II
New Riverside University Dictionary 1984.)

Hence, one can imply either a singularity or to a plurality within unity. The Holy
Bible clearly teaches that God is a plurality of Persons coexisting as one Being,
having one nature and essence. In fact, had Naik continued reading further into the
text he would have found the Lord Jesus affirming this point:
"While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, 'How is it that the
teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David
himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit
at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'" David himself calls
him "Lord." How then can he be his son?' The large crowd listened to him with
delight." Mark 12:35-37

The Lord Jesus identifies two Persons as Lord, the Messiah and God. Christ also
affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit since it is the Spirit that spoke through
David, inspiring the latter to write the passage cited by Jesus, Psalm 110:1.

Therefore, when Mark 12 is read within its intended context we discover that
Israel's one Lord is a multi-personal Being, refuting Naik's position.

Naik:

It is striking that the basic teachings of the Church such as Trinity and vicarious
atonement find no mention in the Bible. In fact, various verses of the Bible point to
Jesus' (pbuh) actual mission, which was to fulfill the law revealed to Prophet
Moses (pbuh). Indeed Jesus (pbuh) rejected any suggestions that attributed divinity
to him, and explained his miracles as the power of the One True God.

Jesus (pbuh) thus reiterated the message of monotheism that was given by all
earlier prophets of Almighty God.

NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.

Response:

The only striking thing is Naik's misquotation of the Holy Bible and willful neglect
of the context of Scripture, which clearly affirms the Trinity and Jesus' vicarious
suffering. Therefore, the Church has clearly understood the message of the Holy
Bible, while Naik has distorted it to his own destruction:

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother
Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way
in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things
that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they
do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16
Naik:

III CONCEPT OF GOD IN OLD TESTAMENT:

1. God is One
The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from
Moses (pbuh):

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad."


It is a Hebrew quotation, which means:
"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord"
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]

2. Unity of God in the Book of Isaiah

The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:

(i) "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."


[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]

(ii) "I am Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 45:5]

(iii) "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]

Response:

We are glad to see that Naik realizes that Isaiah teaches the unity of God. Yet, this
very same Isaiah also affirms that the one true God of creation is indeed a multi-
personal Being. In fact, Isaiah clearly teaches that God is a tri-unity of Persons.
Note the following passages:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be
upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The
Mighty God, The Father of Eternity (abi ad), The Prince of Peace. Of the
increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on
David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with
justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD
Almighty will accomplish this." Isaiah 9:6-7

According to Isaiah, a child will be born who will be the Mighty God himself, the
Father or Source of eternal life. Isaiah takes the same titles of the child and applies
them elsewhere to the true God Yahweh:

"A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God." Isaiah
10:21

"O LORD, You are my God. I will exalt You, I will praise Your name, For You
have done WONDERFUL things; Your COUNSELS of old are faithfulness
and truth." Isaiah 25:1 NKJV
"LORD, you establish peace for us; all that we have accomplished you have done
for us." Isaiah 26:12

"This also comes from the LORD of hosts, Who is wonderful in counsel and
excellent in guidance." Isaiah 28:29

This means that Isaiah clearly believed that the one true God Yahweh is multi-
personal as opposed to being an uni-personal Entity.

In case Naik tries to claim that Isaiah 9:6-7 does not refer to the Messiah, we
present the following ancient Jewish commentary, one that thoroughly embraces
the messianic interpretation of this passage:

"For to us a Son is born, to us a Son is given; and His name is called from of old,
Wonderful, Counselor, Eloha (God, Arabic - Allah), The Mighty, Abiding to
Eternity, THE MESSIAH, because peace shall be multiplied on us in His
days." Targum Jonathan

This clearly demonstrates that Christians are not the only ones that have interpreted
Isaiah 9:6-7 messianically, since even non-Christians viewed the text in the same
manner also.

"I will tell of the kindnesses of the LORD, the deeds for which he is to be
praised, according to all the LORD has done for us - yes, the many good things he
has done for the house of Israel, according to his compassion and many kindnesses.
He said, 'Surely they are my people, sons who will not be false to me'; and so he
became their Savior. In all their distress he too was distressed, AND THE
ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE (Hebrew - face) SAVED THEM. In his love and
mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of
old. Yet they rebelled and GRIEVED his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became
their enemy and he himself fought against them. Then his people recalled the days
of old, the days of Moses and his people - where is he who brought them through
the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit
among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand, who
divided the waters before them, to gain for himself everlasting renown, who led
them through the depths? Like a horse in open country, they did not stumble; like
cattle that go down to the plain, they were given rest BY THE SPIRIT OF THE
LORD. This is how you guided your people to make for yourself a glorious
name." Isaiah 63:7-14

This passage attributes the redemption of Israel to Yahweh, the Angel of his
Presence/Face and to the Holy Spirit. Dr. Robert Morey comments on the
significance of the Angel being identified as God's presence:
"There are three distinct persons in this passage. There is the Speaker who sent the
Messenger. That makes two Persons. Then the Holy Spirit was grieved. That
makes three Persons.

"In the Hebrew text of verse 9, the words 'the Messenger of His presence'...
literally translates as 'the Messenger of His face.' It was an idiomatic expression
which meant that the Messenger who is His face, i.e. who is the outward
expression of His essence. The classic German commentator Carl Wilhelm
Nagelsbach explains:

For by 'the angel of His face' who saved them, the suppliant evidently intends... by
whom the redemption of the people from Egyptian slavery was effected. The
expression... refers immediately to Ex. xxxiii. 14,15, where to the request of Moses
that the LORD would let him know whom He intends to send with them (vers.
12,13), the answer is given... Moses thereupon rejoins: 'If... (thy Face) go not, carry
us not up hence.'

"Because Moses wanted to know whether God Himself would be with them, he
asks whether God's 'face' would be with them. The divine Messenger who
appeared to Moses and the Patriarchs was the 'face' of God. As Delitzsch
rightly points out:

'the face of God' is His self-revealing presence. The genitive..., therefore, is not to
be taken objectively in the sense of 'the angel who sees His face' but as
explanatory, 'the angel who is His face, or in whom His face is manifested.'

"This has been pointed out by modern commentators as well. E.J. Young
comments:

This angel (the word means messenger) God had promised to send to His people
(Ex. 23:20-23) and actually did send to them (Ex. 14:19; Num. 20:16). He is the
Lord's angel (Ex. 33:14, 15)and is actually the Lord (Yahweh) Himself (Ex.
33:12).

"The 'Messenger of His face' is clearly the 'Messenger of Yahweh' who is Yahweh
in human form. Who else could be described with such terminology? Even the
pre-Christian Jews understood this quite clearly. Thus, the Septuagint renders
Isaiah 63:9 as:

ek pases thlipseos ou presbus oude angelos all autos kurios esosen autous dia to
agapan autous

... out of their affliction; not by an ambassador, or an angel but the Lord himself
saved them through His love.
"The Alexandrian Jews in their paraphrase of this verse pointed out that the
'messenger of His face' was not a human ambassador (presbus) or a mere created
angel (angelos) but Yahweh himself." (Morey,The Trinity - Evidence and
Issues [World Bible Pub Co; September 1996 ISBN: 0529106922], pp. 200-202;
bold emphasis ours)

Therefore, we discover that this Angel was not a mere creature, but rather the
eternal God himself appearing to the Israelites on behalf of Jehovah their God. The
Angel was both distinct from Jehovah and fully God in nature, since he himself is
Jehovah God that appeared in visible form.

Furthermore, The Holy Sprit is viewed as a Person since the Spirit can be grieved
and grants rest to God's people. These are traits belonging to a Person, not to a
force.

Add to this Isaiah's statement that Jehovah alone saves and is the sole Savior of all
creation, we end up with the conclusion that the God of the OT is a triune Being:

"'You are my witnesses,' declares the LORD, 'and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no
god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and
apart from me there is no savior.' " Isaiah 43:10-11

"Declare what is to be, present it- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this
long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And
there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none
but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and
there is no other." Isaiah 45:21-22

And in the words of Hosea:

"But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall
acknowledge no God but me, NO SAVIOR EXCEPT ME. I cared for you in
the desert, in the land of burning heat." Hosea 13:4-5

Therefore, these passages thoroughly endorse the teaching of the Trinity, since the
one God of Israel that redeemed them from Egypt is seen existing in three distinct
Persons: Yahweh, the Angel who shares his nature fully and equally, and the Holy
Spirit.

Naik:

3. Old Testament condemns idol worship

(i) Old Testament condemns idol worship in the following verses:


"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that
is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth:"

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God
am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]

(ii) A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in
heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy
God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]

Response:

These verses actually incriminate Muhammad as an idol worshiper. This therefore


means that Muhammad falls under the righteous condemnation of God. Islamic
Tradition states that Muhammad venerated a black stone, claiming that it was an
ancient relic that Abraham placed in the Kabah:

Narrated Salim that his father said: I saw Allah's Apostle arriving at Mecca; he
kissed the Black Stone Corner first while doing Tawaf and did ramal in the first
three rounds of the seven rounds (of Tawaf). (Sahih al-Bukhari 2:673)

Narrated 'Abis bin Rabia: 'Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and
said "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone
nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have
kissed you." (Sahih al-Bukhari 2:667, 675, 676, 679, 680)

The reason behind Umar's reluctance in kissing the black object is that the pagan
Arabs also performed this ritual. Muhammad kept this pagan practice, a practice
that Umar reluctantly observed. Yet, since he saw his prophet kissing it, he was
obligated to follow suit.

Sheikh Sha'rawi says:

"The kissing of the meteorite is a firm practice in Islamic law because


Muhammad did it. You must not ask about the wisdom behind that because
this rite is (an expression) of worship in spite of the obscurity of its wisdom."
(Sha'rawi, Legal Opinions, pt. 3, p. 167 as cited in Behind the Veil, p. 287)

Some try to justify this practice by claiming that kissing the stone is no more
idolatrous than the kissing of one's wife or children would be classified as idolatry
as well. Hence, it is argued that kissing does not necessarily imply worship, but
simply demonstrates affection. The only problem behind this logic is that showing
affection to one's wife or children is never condemned in the Holy Bible, yet the
showing of affection of any kind to stones or idols is condemned completely.
Therefore, this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation and of false analogy.

Muhammad also permitted Christian icons of Jesus, Mary and Abraham to remain
within the Kabah.

[After the conquest of Mecca] "Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the
child Jesus, and a painting of an old man, said to be Abraham, the walls inside
[Kaaba] had been covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand
protectively over the icon, the Prophet told 'Uthman to see that all other paintings,
except that of Abraham, were effaced." (Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based
on the Earliest Sources, p.300; ref.- al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi 834, and
Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah vol. 1, p. 107. Martin Lings is a practicing Muslim.)

"... pictures of the prophets and pictures of trees and of angels. Among them there
was a picture of Ibrahim as of an elderly man, drawing lots with arrow lots, and the
picture of Jesus, the son of Mary, and of his mother and a picture with angels." (al-
Azraqi according to the Arabic text edited by Ferdinand Wuestenfeld, Chroniken
der Stadt Mekka, Band 1, Leipzig 1858, reprint Beyreuth 1964, p. 110)

"On the day of the conquest of Mecca the Prophet entered the House (= the Kaaba;
my comment)and sent al-Fadl ibn al-Abbas ibn Abdalmuttalib to get water from
the well of Zemzem. He ordered to bring pieces of cloth and to imbue them with
water and then he commanded to wash off these pictures, as it was done. He
stretched his arms, however, over the picture of Jesus, the son of Mary, and of
his mother and said: 'Wash off all except what is under my hands!' But
eventually he took away his hands away from Jesus, the son of Mary, and his
mother." (al-Azraqi p. 111, cf. p. 76) (Source: soc.religion.islam newsgroup
posting)

The true God of Abraham would never send a black stone for his followers to kiss,
nor would he permit the fashioning and veneration of an idol of Mary and Christ.
These things find no biblical precedence. Both the New Testament and the early
Christians never fashioned images of Christ or Mary. This practice was adopted
centuries later by pagans converting to Christianity who integrated pagan customs
into the Church. This is precisely what we find Muhammad doing with the religion
of Islam. Therefore, Naik's appeal to the biblical condemnation of idolatry
backfires against him, since these biblical citations expose Muhammad's idolatrous
inclinations and practices.

Our examination of Naik's article should make it obvious to any open-minded


individual that Naik is unqualified to comment on the biblical concept of God. Dr.
Naik claims that he is a student of comparative religion. His research shows that he
is a rather poor student of comparative religion and often misrepresents and
misquotes religious scriptures to suit his theological presuppositions. We advise
Naik to refrain from lecturing on issues that he is unqualified to speak on. Naik is
neither a Muslim scholar nor an honest student of comparative religions.

This concludes our rebuttal. In the service of our Great God and Savior Jesus
Christ forever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus.