Rating: Summary: Answering Islam, not answering atheism. Review: Let me start off by saying that this book merits it's five starts based on what it seeks to answer. The book is divided into three sections, each dealing in one way or another with Islam. The first section gives a general overview of Islam, but of course to be general it touches upon some unorthodox Muslim beliefs that maybe only one or two sects in Islam follow and not all. Most of the time, though, this section does represent Islam fairly and touches upon most of the ideas common to all sects of Islam. The second section of the book deals with a response to the first section. It illustrates the flaws and holes in Islam (this piece is quite scholarly and thoroughly researched). Those who give one or two stars to this book are usually close minded Muslims unwilling to face facts, reason, and rationality. There is no twisting of the Qur'an anywhere in the book. If there is any twisting going on it is in the hearts and minds of those who, faced with a rational refutation of their practice, choose to blame the authors of being wrong instead of their soundly refuted beliefs. Finally, the third section of the book is a defense of the most rigorously attacked doctrines in Christianity by Muslims. There are some folks (like the fellows from Dallas,TX and Washington below) who seem to think this section, and the rest of the book for that matter, is supposed to be directed at defending Christianity from atheism. If you want to read about that you might as well look for something written by William Lane Craig or other works by Norman Geisler. This section and the rest of the book is an answer to Islam and a very good one I might add. It does not answer all questions but it does answer many and provides enough answers to soundly reject Islam as being a true religion. I'd like to make a couple of notes. First many of the reviews below seem to think that because this book is written by a Christian and ex-Muslim it cannot possibly represent Islam truthfully. In response to that I'd like to say a couple of things. First, even Dr. Jeremiah McAuliffe (a muslim who participated in an online debate with Abdul Saleeb over issues raised in this book) said: "The first part of the book is Abdul explaining Islam. I couldn't believe it. It was really good! I wondered how the Christian was going to refute it." I would like to mention pertaining to the so-called "Christian-bias" found in this book, does anyone really believe you will find an unbiased Islam book written by a muslim? No of course not, any "fundamentalist" Islamic book will be as biased, if not more, as this book, only from a Muslim perpective. Additionally, as I briefly mentioned, many Muslims are happy with the first section of the book, they just dislike the second and third sections because, of course, it contradicts their beliefs. I'd like to also ask those who say that a big deal is made about the ex-muslim author, what is the big deal? It is only mentioned in the back of the book that one of the authors is an ex-muslim, after that you never hear about it in the book, in fact you cannot tell when the ex-muslim (whom by the way is Abdul Saleeb) is writing and when Dr. Geisler is writing. So the whole big deal they claim is non-existent, moreover it is just another way of evading the real issue, that this book is a great tool in soundly refuting Islam on historical as well as philosophical grounds. The final note I'd like to make is to fellows like the guy from Dallas, TX below. I'd like to make it clear that Christianity if anything, is no myth. Historically, archeologically, philosophically, scientifically, and even axiologically Christianity is quite reasonable. I'd like to mention that I was not always Christian but like the great literary genius of the 20th century C.S. Lewis, "I was brought to Jesus because of my mind." The fellow from Texas asks that Norman Geisler be put in front of Larry King Live in front of atheists. I ask him to choose which ones. Some of the most intellectual contemporary atheists like Frank Zindler, Peter Atkins, Theodore Drange, Massimo Pigliucci, Doug Jesseph, Antony Flew, Kai Nielsen, and Quentin Smith have been masterfully debated by Christian apologists like Dr. William Lane Craig. To judge for yourself how incredibly sound the reasoning for Christianity is you should look for some of these debate tapes available on the internet. The debate with Quentin Smith is available through Amazon in the form of a book. All this leaves me with this conclusion: In my spiritual journey I was an atheist and I almost become Muslim because a very good friend of mine nearly convinced me. But like I said before, I was brought to Jesus because of my mind. In fact, atheism and Islam require more faith to believe than Christianity! Christianity is a superbly intelligent faith, if it weren't for that fact I would not be Christian. I will end with two final quotes which are found in a book of a debate between christian scholar Dr. Gary Habermas and atheist philosopher Dr. Antony Flew. One of the professional debate judges who was present (non-Christian judge by the way) said of the evidence for the resurrection based on that presented during the debate: "Since the case against the resurrection was no stronger than that presented by Antony Flew, I would think it was about time I began to take the resurrection seriously. My conclusion is that Flew lost the debate and the case for the resurrection won." Another debate judge said, "I conclude that the historical evidence is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead." As for all those who asked why should Christianity be the only way, I simply refer to the last statement I made. Historically, if the resurrection did occur, then Christianity must be the truth. And truth by its very nature and definition is absolute. Everything contrary to truth is false. Including Islam, atheism, and the rest. I don't meant to put any of these faiths down, I simply am stating that as a truth-seeker, I am led to Christianity because of it's historicity, it's intelligence, and especially it's message. I invite all to read the New Testament and study it's historicity. I believe it can change your life as it changed mine.
Rating: Summary: Not too bad Review: Not a bad read. The authors write quite well. Based on some of the comments made by the Muslim readers, there seems to be doubt as to whether it is factually accurate in portraying Islam. Which is a shame as it could have been better.
Rating: Summary: Why did I bother? Review: If you want to learn something about Islam, then read a book by a Muslim. You wouldn't learn much about Christianity, by reading a theology book by a Muslim now would you?
Rating: Summary: This is a Great and Helpful Book !! Review: A word (MANY words) of thanks to Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb for writing this Volume. It is accurate, precise and concisely presents the facts without any rancour and offense. The references at the back of the Book are comprehensive and sufficiently addresses the need for anyone who wants to pursue the study further from BOTH sides of view. From someone who is from the east, with many muslim inputs and interaction, I dare say that this volume is a much needed breath of fresh air, especially needed and very suitable for those in dialog situations. Congrats and shukran, Abdul Saleeb and Geisler!
Rating: Summary: What a waste of my money!! Review: Who is out there that wants cheap gratification or a false feeling of assurance about the validity of a religion (Christianity) based on childish logic. This book is for such people. I am an atheist, who grew up in the church. This book answers nothing. Put Norman Geisler on Larry King Live in front of a few atheist writers I know, and we'll see how he answers our problems with Christ myth. The reviewer from Washington has a few very good points about the myth of Christ that neither this book, nor any other book preaching Christianity, has answered. Some suggested books: 1>Losing Faith in Faith : From Preacher to Atheist by Dan Barker. 2>The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. 3>The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays by Joseph McCabe 4>Forgery in Christianity : A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion by Joseph Wheless. Now lets see if Geisler can respond to any of these guys!!
Rating: Summary: Answering Islam Review: Much of the book, deals with supposed contradictions in the Qur'an. However in making their case, the authors have (deliberately?) misinterpreted the relevant surahs in order to make the case. Any Muslim scholar would be able to point ou the correct interpretations of the Surahs. There is a website also called Answering Islam which contains much of the information in this book. You would be better off saving you money and reading the material on the website
Rating: Summary: Good Christian Interaction with Islam Review: Having read many Christian works which profess to aid the Christian in understanding Islam, this hands down, is the best I have found to date. Organized well, this volume will aid the Christian to understand Islam, and the Muslim reading to understand Christianity's response. Of major significance is their consistent emphasis on Islam's uncertainty of salvation contrasted with the Christian's full assurance that in the Gospel of Christ no believer will ever be disappointed. Highly recommended.
Rating: Summary: biased? - i think so Review: well, what can i say? Another attack on islam, this time coming in the literary form. As if those taking place in palestine were not enough, we find books like these. So, is the book worth reading? If you want 400 pages of anti-islamic material thrown in your face, go ahead. I have read it, and frankly, all the authors seem to have done is picked up a commentary on the quran, maybe tafseer ibn kathir, and all the verses that have required explanation, the authors have placed them in and claimed they are contradictions/errors etc. Biblical referances seem to be scarce, and difficult to come by - if a scholar wrote a critical study of the bible, i am sure there would not be many christians in the world left. anyways, if you want the islamic side, try to obtain the book "Izharul-haq by Rahmatullah kiranwi (in arabic). An english trasnlation has been undertaken, but very difficult oto come by. I hope this review helps. It is my 3rd one. The other 2 have never appeared.
Rating: Summary: Poorly researched Review: I should say from the outset that I am a Muslim. So of course I have some biasness. Whilst the book is well written it does not accurately portray the beliefs of Islam. Much is made of the fact that one of the writers is a former Muslim himself. However in some ways this exascerbates the problem, rather than help. Being a former Muslim he knows enough about the religion to be able to bend the truth, but at the same time claim that his views accurately portray Islam. Regretably they do not. I can't comment on the Christian aspects of the book as I don't know enough about the religion to comment.
Rating: Summary: Does not answer all questions. how can it though?!! Review: First about myself, and then about this book. I studied at Catholic schools for about 13 years so I know the "ins and outs" of Christianity more than most Christians. I believe that if you search for truth with honesty and without prejudice, you will find it. There are two types of books on Christianity - Scholarly, and Motivational. This book I classify as motivational. It has two parts - first describing Islam from the point of view of a few ex-Muslims who present Islam incorrectly. I see a lot of reviews by people impressed by the fact that ex-Muslims write negatively about Islam. Shows how gullible people are. If I want to find out about Christianity, should I read Billy Graham's books, or an ex-Christian preacher who is now an atheist. Come on people. Don't be naïve. These guys are not scholars of Islam and they if claim to be, then I want to know what was their acceptance level in the Islamic world. Any bunch of ex-Muslims and ex-Christians can write whatever suits their purpose. What is the credibility of such writings? So what if they were preachers or "evangelists". Such people can be found a dime a dozen. Not everything in print should be accepted at face value. Unless you want a distorted image of a religion, I would not put weight to this part. The second part of the book goes on to answer material that Muslim debaters have used against the doctrines of Christianity. The author obviously was perturbed by attacks on his beliefs so he responds first by painting a picture of Islam that suits his arguments, and then defends Christianity accordingly. Here I want to say to the author "SIR, THE MUSLIMS ARE NOT THE ENEMY OF CHRSTIANITY, IT IS THE BIBLE ITSELF AND THE SPOKEN WORDS OF CHRIST (which are printed in Red ink in many bibles) THAT CONTRADICT WHAT THE CHURCHES PREACH. There are many areas of conflict that are either totally left out, or treated very superficially in this book. Many questions still linger. And I want answers. For instance why did Jesus himself not tell people he was going to die for their sins? When asked about the way to attain salvation, he repeatedly instructed the people to stick to the commandments. He never said, "Be patient. I will be killed AND that will be atonement for your sins." Quite the contrary instead every time he talked about salvation he told people to "Hold on to the commandments (of Moses)." and "unless your righteousness does not exceed the righteousness of the scribes you shall by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven." Obviously, that is the way to salvation according to Christ. I read third parties in the bible saying that Jesus died for our sins, but I want to hear that from Jesus' mouth. Jesus is quoted as saying that the Romans will kill him. But in those predictions I don't see a co-relation to our salvation? Did John the Baptist also die for our sins and prophets before him? Second: at what point in time did God decide to love the world so much that He "Sacrificed his son". I mean Moses killed a man but God forgave him when Jesus was not even born yet. So what form of forgiveness was that and how did that form differ from the one nowadays. Obviously God loved the people before Jesus too so why did He not send Jesus before everyone else. Third: How can God die? And what kind of a death is it that he was raised up alive after three days. What kind of a sacrifice is that? Was Jesus a hypocrite? I would sure like to die like that - to be reunited alive with my family after three days? God, my friends, by His nature cannot sacrifice anything. Because everything alive belongs to Him and in Death we also belong to Him. Since everything is His, He cannot part away with things (sacrifice) like we humans do. That is just part of His Greatness. God was never in a human form. Whatever form He is in, He has always existed, He never died, will never die, CAN NEVER die. If this human-god of Christianity died for three days, who fed the people their daily bread?!! You say the "Father". You mean that there were two different forms of God during those moments -- one being put to the cross by the Romans, and the other you call the Father. BUT GUESS WHAT: read what your Bible says in Isaiah 43:10 (and I quote) Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he, BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME. (Isaih 43:10) If you want to buy this book, then I would highly recommend another companion book to this. It is called "What Did Jesus Really Say" (ISBN: 1888782099). Read that book first from cover to cover, and then this book. Both books cost about the same. It will take about three weeks; then you will get both sides of the argument. There are other books that deal with the truth about Christianity that ex-preachers and others have written that you can use the search engine to locate but though very powerful in their logic, their language can be viewed as abrupt by some. The companion book I recommend is written by a Muslim who uses the Bible to disprove Christianity. But he does not "slap you in the face." For me the conclusion was that I do not believe in the doctrine of Trinity, and I do not believe that Jesus is the Savior of anyone. After reading several books on the history of early Christianity by professors of theology, I have objectively concluded that St Paul lied and he changed many of the teachings of Christ. He did that in order to gain a political edge with the Roman rulers who were not willing to accept the Jewish laws (because they felt Jews (their subjects) were inferior to them). St Paul told the Emperor, "Hey, guess what. You don't accept our religion because we ask you to do a painful surgery, and ask you to fast, and pray. But is this perfect timing or what. "Cause I just saw Jesus in my dream say "you don't have to be circumcised. Forget the law. Do what you want. I died for your sins"". A lot of the New Testament contradicts what Jesus said and preached and for me between the two of them, "Jesus is the light, the truth and the way to salvation". I believe in Jesus' teachings of Salvation by holding to the commandments of the last prophet (Peace be on him) and I reject everything in the Bible contrary to that.
|