Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity

by Qureshi, Nabeel

  Abba answered honestly, “Because it’s not possible that Jesus died on the cross. He was beloved of God, and he cried out to be saved. If there are verses that say he prophesied his death on the cross, those verses must have been added by Christians.”

  I felt my face flush. From my earlier conversations with David, I knew arguing against the textual integrity of the New Testament was difficult, but that was not what I found embarrassing. Rather, it was clear to me that Abba was cherry-picking verses to defend his views. I decided to speak up.

  “Abba, I think they’re saying that, unless we have good reason to discredit a specific verse, it might be inconsistent to use ones we like and ignore the ones we don’t like.”

  Abba turned to me, utterly stunned that I would contravene his authority. He looked betrayed, and I regretted my words. From that point on, he did not say much. I took over the remainder of the conversation, which turned out to be rather brief.

  “Okay, I hear your case, guys, but I also see there’s room for doubt. Are there scholars that agree with Abba and me that Jesus did not die on the cross?”

  Mike responded, “Well, in the 1700s some scholars started suggesting that Jesus did not die on the cross, but the theory was short-lived. David Strauss, a highly respected non-Christian scholar, argued a key point: not only was Jesus’ survival of the cross highly implausible, it would have nipped the Christian movement in the bud.48

  “You see, the disciples went from being afraid of associating with Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane to being willing to die for proclaiming him the Risen Lord. If Jesus had just barely survived the crucifixion, he would have come to them broken and on the verge of dying. That is not the kind of appearance that would inspire a total transformation and a disregard for death. That boldness was the ethos of the early Christian movement, and without it, there would be no Christianity.”

  Gary added, “These are just some of the reasons why virtually no scholar in the field denies Jesus’ death on the cross. In fact, the opposite is true: most scholars agree that they can be more assured of Jesus’ death by crucifixion than of anything else in his life.”

  I pushed. “You’re talking about Christian scholars, right?”

  “Christian, non-Christian, you name it. And, like I said, there are other reasons, all compelling. For example, there are multiple non-Christian sources from the first century after Jesus who testify to Jesus’ death on the cross, and there are many more Christian sources that confirm it. Plus, there’s no tradition to the contrary, not for a long time. But to answer your question, I’m talking about virtually everyone.”

  Mike added the last word. “Scholars are virtually unanimous: the death of Jesus on the cross is among the surest facts of history.”

  I let these words sink in. Soon, Abba indicated that it was time to leave. I wanted to stay and talk some more, but Abba was firm. The silence during the ride home served to echo Mike’s concluding words. It seemed to me that if I wanted to hold onto an Islamic version of Jesus’ crucifixion — whether through the substitution theory or the theistic swoon theory — I would have to discard history. The Quran required me to close my eyes to the evidence and believe solely on faith.

  Here were the results of our litmus test, and there were no shades of grey: the Christian claim aligned with the evidence 100 percent.

  But what was worse, I had seen Abba refuted. For one reason or another, he had elected to ignore an obvious truth during our conversation, and that did not sit well with me at all. I realized I could no longer uncritically trust what my parents had taught me. I did not doubt their sincerity, their devotion, or their love, but I was beginning to doubt their grasp of the truth.

  It was as if, rather suddenly, a veil of certainty was lifted, and I was seeing the potential of the world in a new light. It was like I had been wearing colored glasses my entire life, and they had been taken off for the first time. Everything looked different, and I wanted to examine it all more carefully.

  Maybe, just maybe, I should start considering it a remote possibility that the Christian message could possibly be true.

  Chapter Twenty-Six

  A MUSLIM AT CHURCH

  WHEN WE ARRIVED HOME, Ammi met us at the door. She was curious to know how the meeting went. I debriefed her on our conversation, emphasizing that we were able to get our point across. But given that Abba was still hesitant to speak and that I was anxious to leave the room, I doubt she was convinced. As soon as I could, I excused myself and made my way upstairs.

  The room at the end of our upstairs hallway was originally designed to be a large closet or laundry room, but when Abba had the house built, he asked the builders to extend it into a full-size bedroom. He made it his library, lining the walls with bookcases, each full to the brim. Whenever I wanted to study literature on religion, I would go to the appropriate section of Abba’s bookcase, pick out some books, and flop down on my stomach to start reading. It was something I often did for fun.

  But I was not thinking about fun that day. I was on a mission to resolve the tension that was growing in my heart and mind.

  I pulled out the books we had about Jesus, almost all of which were written by Muslim authors and scholars. I began systematically sifting through the literature, looking for information that I could use to respond to what I had just heard.

  It was then that I noticed something for the first time: the books Abba had on Jesus’ life were all polemical. They started with a conclusion, found facts that supported their position, and then made their case. As Gary had pointed out about Abba’s argument, the treatments were not careful or fair. They did not grapple with counterarguments, which left the cases they made untested and brittle.

  Even though I had seen our arguments fail multiple times, I now became convinced it was because we had poor methodology. Eastern authors were able to make passionate cases that compelled the heart, but Western authors thought more systematically and linearly, equipping themselves with excellent counterarguments and more tempered positions. Perhaps if I employed Western methodology with Eastern passion, I would be able to craft the most compelling and defensible case of all.

  It was time to become more systematic about my approach, but I had no idea how to start. Just then, David called. I flipped open my phone.

  “Nabeel!” he started, cheerfully. “What’d you think of the conversation?”

  “I’m still processing it. I think I need to learn about methodology.”

  “Oh yeah? How?”

  “I dunno. You got any ideas?”

  “Actually, yeah. I noticed you didn’t want to leave at the end of the conversation, so I asked Mike and Gary if they had another opportunity to talk. Turns out they were planning on doing lunch tomorrow, and they wouldn’t mind having us along. It’ll be after church, where Gary is the guest preacher. Wanna join us? You could ask them all about historical methodology, and . . .”

  “Whoa, wait.” My brain did not compute his suggestion. “You want me to come to church with you?”

  “If you want.”

  “And what would I tell my parents?”

  “What do you mean?”

  I tried to talk some sense into him. “You think they’re going to let me just go to church with you? So I can talk with Mike and Gary? Not after today.”

  “Take your thumb out of your mouth, grow some chest hair, and just tell them. You’re an adult, for crying out loud.”

  I sighed, exasperated. “You don’t understand. It’s much more complicated than that.”

  To my parents, a second meeting could indicate that I was beginning to give Mike and Gary a place of authority in my life. This would be especially true if I did not bring Abba with me to the meeting, but bringing him was out of the question. I wouldn’t be able to speak freely if he were to come along.

  I did not want to give them cause for undue concern, and honestly, I did not want to give them the opportunity to tell me I couldn’t go. I decided to tell my parents I was going to ha
ng out with David, which was the truth, but not the whole truth. Over the following years, there were a few more occasions when I had to test my moral compass by navigating between full and partial truths for the sake of a higher good. I never liked it, but I otherwise felt stuck between a rock and a hard place.

  I went to David’s house the next day, and he drove me to his church. It was a college church called “Campus Impact,” and it was a totally new experience for me. They had what they called a worship team on stage: singers and a band that played guitars, drums, and other instruments as people clapped and sang along. There were humorous announcements, a brief break during which people seemed coerced to greet one another, and a bucket that people passed along to collect money.

  I had never seen any of this before, and it all seemed very irreverent to me. Worship was supposed to be a solemn, reflective time of bonding between man and God, yet these people were banging on drums and asking for money. At the mosque, no one was allowed to stand in front of you while you worshiped so that you could focus on worshiping God. That there were girls on stage during a worship service seemed to border on sacrilege.

  So the worship service disturbed me and left a sour taste in my mouth. I thought, “If this is what it means to worship God as a Christian, I want nothing to do with it.”

  For me, the sermon was the main event. When it came time for Gary to speak, he delivered a sermon on immortality. He argued that Jesus’ resurrection was a historically verifiable event and that the implications were tremendous. It meant that life does not end when we die, that we are immortal. This was cause either to rejoice or to be gravely concerned, depending on what life after death might hold.

  But, according to Gary, Jesus’ resurrection also answered this question. It meant that the Christian message was true and that we could know we would be in heaven forever with God if we trusted Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

  That is where my Muslim mind took issue with Gary. Yes, God makes us, in a sense, immortal. Though our bodies will die, our souls will never cease to be. But even if Jesus had already been raised from the dead, that didn’t make everything else about Christianity automatically true.

  After church, we went to a restaurant called “The Max,” and I made that very point between bites of salad.

  “Gary, let’s say the resurrection of Jesus actually happened. That doesn’t all of a sudden mean that we ought to accept him as our Lord and Savior. That just means he was raised from the dead.”

  “Yes, but you have to start asking the question, ‘Why?’ Why did he die on the cross, and why was he raised?” Gary paused to let me process, then continued, “Plus, you have to grapple with the fact that this man is obviously telling the truth about himself.”

  “What truth?” I asked, breaking away from my food.

  “That he is divine.”

  “Wait a minute. That’s a whole separate issue. I don’t think Jesus claimed to be God.”

  Gary gave a slight nod. “Fair enough, but you’d at least agree with this: if Jesus was raised from the dead, then that means God has His stamp of approval on Jesus.”

  “Yes, of course, but I already believe that God approves of Jesus.”

  David interjected, “Nabeel, just yesterday you said you wanted to learn methodology, which means you want to be more objective in your research and argumentation, right?”

  “Absolutely.”

  “Then ‘I already believe something’ is not a good reason to continue believing it. You need better reasons, ones that are grounded in objective facts. If the resurrection happened, we have good reason to believe that God approves of Jesus. That’s the point.”

  I turned back to Gary. “Okay, I get it. But so what? What does that mean for me?”

  Even though the question was directed at Gary, David continued, “It means you should look and see if Jesus really did claim to be God.”

  Historical method: Criteria and techniques used by historians to systematically investigate the past

  Criterion of multiple attestation: A principle of the historical method that posits that a recorded event is more likely to be historically accurate if it is recorded in multiple independent sources

  Criterion of early testimony: A principle of the historical method that posits that early accounts of an event are more likely to be accurate than later accounts, all else being equal

  “Okay, I want to do that. But how? And that’s my main question here: how can I investigate this stuff more or less objectively? How should I go about this methodologically?”

  Mike, who had been mostly listening up to this point, perked up. “I’ve actually been working on a book, one that Gary and I will be publishing together, where we address that very question in regard to Jesus’ resurrection.49 Historians carefully use criteria and techniques when investigating the past. Their systematic approach is called the historical method.”

  Mike began to lay out some of the basic criteria of the historical method, such as the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of early testimony. What I began to notice was that the historical method is mostly about being fair, careful, and using common sense.50

  Wrapping up the discussion, Mike had one final point. “Nabeel, the most important thing is that you have to be consistent when you do your research. Read both sides of an argument. Don’t agree with any theory before you test a few. See which argument addresses the most facts and issues, how well it addresses them, and how important those facts and issues are to the overall argument. Ultimately, that’s how we find the best explanation of the past.”

  This term intrigued me. “The best explanation?” I asked.

  “Yes, that’s what studying history is all about. There will always be competing theories, and no theory about the past is ever perfect. But there is often a best explanation, and sometimes it far exceeds all the others. In the case of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, the best explanation is that he rose from the dead. And this far exceeds all other theories.”

  I was processing this information in my head, determining how I would apply it. “Alright, I think it’s coming together. Here’s what I want to do: I want to put the main issues of Christianity and Islam into historically investigable terms so that I can determine which one is more likely to be true. So tell me if you agree with this: if we can determine that Jesus claimed to be God, that he died on the cross, and that he rose from the grave, then that would be a good case for Christianity.”

  The three of them nodded.

  I continued, “But if we can determine that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he did not rise from the dead, or that he did not claim to be God, then I would have good reason to think Christianity is false. Do you agree?”

  David asked for clarification. “Are you saying all three must be false in order to disprove Christianity?”

  I shook my head. “No, if any one of those three arguments is not compelling, the whole case is not compelling. For example, so what if Jesus claimed to be God and then died on the cross? There are many people who claim to be God and end up dying. But if he rose from the dead after that, now that’s something.”

  At that, Gary asked, “Well, we talked about Jesus’ death on the cross yesterday. What do you think? Do you think the case is strong?”

  “I think it’s strong enough that I am going to look into his resurrection and his deity for now. I might revisit his death on the cross later.”

  Mike smiled, “I’m really glad you’re using your mind to be careful and intentional about your faith. Too many people stick with what their parents taught, or go with the flow, or worse, become bitter. You give me hope, Nabeel. I’m glad to know you.”

  I smiled back. Mike and Gary were nice guys. They didn’t try to push me to believe one thing or another, nor did they seem to think of me as an outsider, as “that Muslim boy.” I was like them, someone who was pursuing God and truth with all his heart and mind.

  And now I had found the path of my pursuit: assess the histo
rical case for Jesus’ death, his deity, and his resurrection. If these three arguments were strongly evidenced, then there would be a strong case for Christianity. If not, then the case would be poor. Other factors, like my opinion of church services, were irrelevant.

  We finished our lunch, said our goodbyes, and parted ways. I would not see Gary or Mike again until a great Muslim debater came to town more than a year later. His objective was to argue against Jesus’ resurrection in front of hundreds.

  His opponent? My new friend Mike.

  Chapter Twenty-Seven

  DEBATING THE RESURRECTION

  THE DEBATE HAD BEEN REQUESTED by Muslim organizations, so it was heavily advertised at the Norfolk mosque. Posters had been up for weeks, flyers were distributed, and a buzz of excitement permeated conversations. This was going to be a great opportunity to see a Muslim scholar, a sheikh, challenge Christian arguments. That Mike himself was the debate opponent made this scenario almost too good to be true. Would the arguments he shared with me and Abba for the death of Jesus hold up under the scrutiny of a Muslim scholar?

  Sheikh: A Muslim leader, usually with graduate-level education in Islamic theology

  The Muslim debater was a well-known apologist who hailed from Toronto named Shabir Ally. He had a congenial stage presence that made me especially appreciative of him. His gentle demeanor helped combat the violent post – 9/11 stereotype of Muslims, which I felt was the best approach. All the same, he boldly wore his Muslim skullcap, a thick black beard, and flowing garb typical of Muslim cultures. Even though he was not Ahmadi, he espoused some Ahmadi arguments, making him the perfect debater in my estimation.