As someone who has walked the complex path from Islam to atheism and eventually to the peace and truth of Christianity, I’ve encountered my fair share of ironies within Islamic apologetics. One particularly amusing observation is the Muslim tendency to cite Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and self-professed agnostic, to discredit Christianity. Muslims often parrot his critiques of biblical textual reliability or the divinity of Christ, thinking they’ve found an intellectual champion for their cause. What they fail to acknowledge—or intentionally ignore—is that Ehrman does not support Islam and has explicitly denounced its claims about Jesus and the Quran.
This tendency reveals a fundamental flaw in Islamic apologetics: a desperation to validate their beliefs through external sources, no matter how incompatible those sources are with Islam’s own doctrines. Let’s examine why this strategy is not only flawed but also inadvertently undermines the credibility of their own faith.
Ehrman’s Critique of Islam
Bart Ehrman is known for his textual criticism of the Bible and his challenges to traditional Christian beliefs. However, his skepticism is not limited to Christianity. In multiple interviews and public discussions, Ehrman has made it clear that he does not find the Quran to be divinely inspired or historically reliable. Ehrman outright rejects the Islamic claim that Jesus was merely a prophet and that he was neither crucified nor resurrected—key tenets of Islamic theology.
Ehrman’s critiques of the Quran focus on its lack of historical grounding and textual issues, much like his approach to the Bible. For instance, in a 2018 debate with Muslim apologist Shabir Ally, Ehrman pointed out the lack of early manuscripts for the Quran and the contradictions in Islamic narratives about its compilation. Ehrman also questioned the Quran’s reliance on apocryphal Christian sources, noting that it borrows heavily from non-canonical gospels like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which were never considered reliable by mainstream Christianity.
Muslims’ Selective Use of Ehrman
Muslims often cite Ehrman’s works like Misquoting Jesus or How Jesus Became God to argue that the Bible has been corrupted or that the divinity of Christ was a later invention. They cherry-pick Ehrman’s critiques of Christianity without acknowledging that his broader skepticism undermines Islam as well. If Ehrman’s skepticism about religious texts discredits the Bible, why would his criticisms not also apply to the Quran, which faces similar textual and historical challenges?
This selective use of Ehrman exposes a deep inconsistency. It’s as if Muslims are saying, “Ehrman is credible when he critiques Christianity, but he’s wrong when he critiques Islam.” This approach is not only intellectually dishonest but also reveals a lack of confidence in Islamic theology’s ability to stand on its own merits.
Ehrman on the Crucifixion: A Fatal Blow to Islamic Theology
One of the most glaring contradictions between Ehrman’s scholarship and Islamic doctrine is his stance on the crucifixion of Jesus. The Quran denies the crucifixion, claiming instead that it only appeared so (Surah An-Nisa 4:157). Ehrman, however, affirms that the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most historically certain events in antiquity. In his book Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman states:
“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”
By citing Ehrman to attack Christianity, Muslims inadvertently align themselves with a scholar who openly contradicts the Quran on one of its most pivotal claims. This irony is not lost on anyone familiar with Ehrman’s work.
The Bigger Picture: Islam’s Insecurity
The reliance on Ehrman is symptomatic of a broader issue within Islamic apologetics: the inability to defend Islam on its own terms. Instead of presenting positive evidence for the Quran’s divine origin or Muhammad’s prophethood, Islamic apologists often resort to attacking Christianity, hoping that discrediting another faith will validate their own. This approach not only fails but also highlights Islam’s theological insecurity.
Moreover, Ehrman’s rejection of Islam underscores a larger truth that many Muslims refuse to confront: intellectual scrutiny does not favor their religion. Whether it’s the lack of historical evidence for the Quran’s claims, the ethical issues in Muhammad’s life, or the logical contradictions in Islamic theology, Islam crumbles under the weight of critical examination. Ehrman is just one of many scholars who have recognized this, and his critiques serve as a reminder that Islam’s foundation is far shakier than its adherents would like to admit.
Conclusion
The Muslim use of Bart Ehrman to attack Christianity is not only ironic but also counterproductive. Ehrman’s scholarship, when applied consistently, undermines the Quran and Islamic theology just as much as—if not more than—it critiques Christianity. As a former Muslim, I can only shake my head at the intellectual gymnastics required to hold Ehrman up as an authority while ignoring his pointed criticisms of Islam. For those seeking the truth, it’s essential to approach these matters with intellectual honesty and consistency—qualities that, unfortunately, seem lacking in much of Islamic apologetics.
Citations
- Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperOne, 2005.
- Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne, 2012.
- Debate: Bart Ehrman vs. Shabir Ally, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" 2018.
- The Quran. Surah An-Nisa 4:157.
- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Accessed via early Christian apocryphal texts.
No comments:
Post a Comment