Mohammed Falling: Islam Versus Islam and The Fallacy of Self Exception

There are these days certain Muslim apologists, who pit their faith openly against that taught in the Bible. I have noticed that one of their primary tactics aims at setting the testimony of various scholars of ancient history, sometimes specialists in early Christianity from groups like the Jesus Seminar, over against this and that passage from the New Testament, with an eye to showing it unhistorical.This is fatal to the cause of Islam for one simple reason.

The best established fact (or at the very least the best attested) of ancient history -- even many of those quoted by Islamic apologists would agree -- is none other than that which the Qu'ran denies -- the death of Jesus of Nazareth at the hands of Roman judges by way of crucifixion. The Jesus Seminar, so far as I know, has not one member foolish enough to deny the historicity of this event.

Moreover, Muslim apologists have the chutzpah to mention the apostles -- usually fixing an interpolated blessing with their mention (i.e. "peace be upon them") -- as though the apostles would ever tolerate a man in their midst who denied this cardinal tenet of the apostolic faith. Paul said that he had resolved to preach "nothing but Christ crucified."

And Galatians 1 tells us that Paul met with the other apostles to have his message examined and confirmed by them in Jerusalem.All four gospels not only affirm the sacrificial death of Jesus this way, but they spend more time and detail on it than any other single event mentioned in the Bible. Any decent student of literature could be able to tell upon a cursory reading that the passion of the Lord Jesus is RATHER THE MAIN POINT of all the New Testament -- as well his resurrection (The NT views these as a "package deal," as we say today).

The point here is not to argue -- I can do that later at length -- for the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ. I only intend to point out that the criteria of western historiography in which Islam seeks to take refuge would -- if held and applied consistently -- do inexorably greater harm to the Muslim faith by disallowing most passages crucial to Islam as historical. Not only would the Qu'ran perish by this tactic, but the Ahadith ("reports") would fail nearly altogether.

Even Josephus knows of and mentions that Pilate put to death one Jesus of Nazareth (Josephus also mentions ever so briefly one "John the baptizer"). If one wishes to dispute the historical nature of such passages, he is of course free to do so. But he will not be taken seriously in any related course at any western university.

And doing so in favor of a religion with "holy books" destined to suffer immeasurably more by the same criteria seems just a little disingenuous -- not to mention a very poor apologetic strategy. Falling on your own sword wins few military battles. Why anyone would think this a successful candidate for a debating strategy I have no idea.

And this post -- I can hear the "refutation" coming is no Tu Quo Que example, since Muslims have not proven (on my view) the unhistorical character of any passage found in the NT. The same applies to Michael Martin and the Jesus Seminar. Of course they think they have. But I am well aware of how it is that these fall on their own swords too.

I call this the "fallacy of reflexive criteria." Usually this carries the name "the fallacy of self-exception," but that doesn't do justice to the true nature of the error. The type of fallacy I aim at is that which the protagonist applies to another view, which criteria used by him entail the denial of the view he defends. This error remains somewhat specialized and so does not appear in informal logic texts (but it should).

Even the birth narratives of the gospels anticipate the sacrifice of Jesus. Luke 1 has an angel commanding Christ's parents, "And you shall call His Name "Jesus" ["God saves"] for HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE from their sins." And Hebrews 9;22 tells us "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission [of sins]."

Moreover, both the universally believed status of Judas as a murderer of Christ, and the early and universal Christian practice of the Lord's Supper presuppose (unanimously) the crucifixion and death of Jesus by those nearest to the actual events mentioned in the New Testament.

This shows that the Bible comprises a carefully woven seamless garment, which has the mutual consent of all its parts. This means that to deny one part implies the denial of all. And to affirm one part is to affirm all by the force of logical consequence. Muslims wish to keep some parts, but not others. This necessarily implies contradictions.

And the irony here is that NEITHER Christians nor the Jesus Seminar (or other like scholars) will assent to the Muslim appeal to the Qu'ran on the one hand, and to the western criteriology for what counts as historical on the other. They simply are not cut from the same mold. And no man can serve two masters. To quote one Christian apologist, "You cannot have it both ways."