Everyone in this world experiences pain and suffering to some degree, some more than the others. Philosophers and theologians categorize such suffering as either Natural Evil (floods, diseases, droughts, accidents, etc.) or Human Evil (deception, cheating, rape, murder, etc.). Throughout human intellectual history, this question of random and rampant suffering, technically known as the Problem of Evil, has remained the most potent and sustained argument for the nonexistence of God. In the Bible, “the best-known wrestling with the problem of suffering comes to us in the book of Job.” (Ehrman, 2008, p. 162). In this paper we’ll look for a response from the Christian and Muslim scriptures to the question of human suffering through the story of Job, and examine it for validity and coherence.

Job is the central character of the Book of Job in the Old Testament. The story has a fairly simple structure, but most biblical scholars agree that the book, as it has reached us, is the result of two separate strands of literature, written by at least two distinct authors (Kee, Meyers, Regerson, & Saldarini, 1997, p. 255), spliced together (Ehrman, 2008, p. 163); prose folktale vs. poetic dialogs. Chapter 1 and 2 are written in prose. Job 3:1 through 42:6 is poetry that consists of a cycle of speeches between Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and later Elihu, followed by the dialogue between God and Job. From Job 42:7-14 the writing turns back to the prose style, in continuation and conclusion of the narrative folktale with which the book begins.

A person with like name, Ayyub (Arabic version of Latinized name “Job”; Hebrew Yov or Yovav), and somewhat similar story, is also mentioned briefly in the Quran, albeit with different theological presuppositions, and perhaps divergent conclusions.

The story has far-reaching theological implications and has been used by both sides; by religious people to support their theodicies, and by atheists and agnostics to advance the Problem of Evil (e.g. Epicurean paradox) to knockdown the arguments for the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God.

A Summary of the Story – According to the Bible

In the Christian intellectual history, the book of Job has been connected with the issue of theodicy. Alongside other philosophical issues that the book explores, the suffering of the righteous is certainly central to this work. In a most masterful manner, the book of Job portrays, in a profoundly humane way, the nature of human suffering. The reader is allowed to listen in and watch a range of reactions to Job’s fast deteriorating fortune. Most human societies, in general, have believed that good people usually profit within this world, but certainly in the afterlife; and that bad people usually suffer the consequences for their action within this life, but certainly in the life to come. Though some prominent Christian scholars and thinkers doubt the historicity of the character of Job (Lewis, 1964, p. 110), a Christian reader sees a confirmation of these beliefs in the story of Job.

Book of Job is accounted by most Christians among the Wisdom Literature but not under Major or Minor Prophets. The narrative framework of the book tells the story of Job as a very rich man who lives in the land of Uz[i]. He worships God sincerely and regularly, and most importantly, is a truly righteous person in the sight of God (Job 1:1). One day, in a wager between Satan and God, God solicits Satan’s opinion regarding Job. Satan – a heavenly being at God’s court – accuses Job of being loyal to God only because of the blessings he continues to receive from God. If God were to take away what Job has, Satan insists, Job would “curse You to Your face” (Job 1:11). As a response, God allows Satan to takeaway, first Job’s wealth, then his children, and finally his health. But Job does not curse God; not even after all these calamities befall him one after the other. Instead, he goes into mourning. He shaves his head, tears his clothes and says, “Naked I came out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return: Lord has given, and Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of Lord” (Job 1:20). In spite of all the pain and suffering, Job maintains his integrity. In the end of the folktale part of the story, Job’s patient endurance under duress is rewarded by God by restoring all his wealth. Job is also given ten new children and he gets to live a happy life till a ripe old age.

The story is somewhat different in the poetic part which constitutes the major portion of the book. Here we find a Job who is bitter against God. In his anguished state, Job repeatedly pleads with God to come and explain his meaningless and unjustified suffering. He curses the day he was born (chap 3) and even wishes he was dead (6:8-9). Upon hearing of all the suffering that has come upon Job, three of his friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar come to console him (A fourth, Elihu, first begins talking in Chapter 32 and plays a significant role in the dialogue; however, his arrival is not described in the text). His three friends insist that Job’s suffering must be a punishment for some sin that he must have committed, but Job strictly maintains his innocence. His fourth friend (or a bystander) Elihu, after repeating much of what was already said, criticizes both sides of the argument, and finishes by praising God’s care for nature. Throughout their speeches, the friends take the “classical” view of suffering, i.e. sinners get what they deserve (Ehrman, 2008, p. 163). God finally appears to Job out of a whirlwind but instead of providing an explanation, overpowers him, and states that much of what God does cannot be understood by humans. God also criticizes Job for talking so much with such little knowledge. Job repents for his desire to make a plea before God. Even to the end, Job does not understand why he suffered. He felt bitter but he never rejected God and remained faithful and convinced that one day God would rescue him from all the unexplained and undeserved misery.

Critical Analysis

The book of Job is usually dated in the 5th to 4th centuries BCE, but seems to be an adaptation of an earlier Akkadian writing from around the year 1000 BCE. The book of Isaiah, which dates back to 8th century BCE, mentions “the suffering righteous servant” in chapter 53[ii]. Similar oral folktales could have existed much earlier than that in the Mesopotamian tradition. Other examples of ancient works similar to the Book of Job include the Sumerian poetic easy “A man and his God”. Although, there is no direct evidence that the unknown authors of the Book of Job were directly dependent upon any Babylonian literature, Job closely resembles, in both content and themes, with the “Babylonian Job” in Ludlul Bel Nemeqi, Babylonian Theodicy (a poem also known as Babylonian Ecclesiastes) and Dialogue of Pessimism (Kee, Meyers, Regerson, & Saldarini, 1997, p. 255).

As the book has come down to us, the narrative framework seems to be incomplete. The ending makes no mention of Satan, and implies that Job’s friends have already spoken – which they do in the poems but not in the narrative part (Kee, Meyers, Regerson, & Saldarini, 1997, p. 253). Close analyses of the two genres – narrative prose and poetic dialogs that make up this book – show that the name of God is different between the two parts. God is referred to as Yahweh in the prose sections and as El/Eloah/Shaddai in the poetic part (Ehrman, 2008, p. 164). Furthermore, Job’s attitude is drastically different in the two parts of the book. In the prose narration, he is a patient sufferer; in the poetic part, he is defiant and combative (Kee, Meyers, Regerson, & Saldarini, 1997, p. 253). Thus God’s response is also different towards the two Jobs: commending in the prose but rebuking in the poetry. Clearly, the two authors had different and contradictory understanding of the question of suffering (Ehrman, 2008, p. 162).

What is the moral of the story? The prose folktale suggests that God deals with us according to our merit, whereas the whole point of the poetic dialogs is that is not the case. God is neither bound to deal justly nor does God need to explain anything to us mere-mortals. Under the first perspective, suffering comes to us all as a test of our sincerity. In the second viewpoint, suffering is a mystery beyond human comprehension (Ehrman, 2008, p. 164).

Other Old Testament (OT) authors are keenly aware that innocent people suffer. The History part of the OT is replete with such examples. In David’s story alone we find Abner being murdered by Joab (2 Sam 3:22-34), Tamar being raped by her half-brother Amnon (2 Sam 13:1-22), David arranging for his most loyal general Uriah’s death (2 Sam 11:14-25). The list goes on. In face of all this, the Book of Job seems to be “an attack on the simplistic view that all suffering is deserved and that the universe is a moral universe”. The authors could have been the “wealthy, educated and philosophically sensitive Jews” who were “suffering from the post-exilic Judah” (Kee, Meyers, Regerson, & Saldarini, 1997, p. 256).

The book of Job thus offers a complex picture of God. Rather than deciding that He does not have to prove anything to Satan, God chooses to get entangled with Satan for His own glory, and takes his loyal worshiper through a most terrible and miserable ordeal. God does not even explain his role to Job. Instead, God challenges Job’s right to question the integrity of Divine Justice (40:8). In the end of this wisdom story, the ultimate question that seems to be the primary focus of the story remains unanswered: why do we suffer?

A Summary of the Story – According to the Quran

The Quranic account of Ayyub (Job) is so brief that it is hard to summarize it any further. However there are a few points that can be inferred safely.

Out of the four cursory references (4:163, 6:84, 21:83, 38:41-44*), the first two Quranic references only mention Ayyub by name among other prophets and messengers, indicating that he, too, was among the chosen and guided prophets of God, and that he was among the progeny of Noah. Besides this, not much information can be derived. The latter two references, however, deliver a bit more information. As is common with the Quran, this information needs to be unpacked very carefully and logically, without getting swayed by the known biblical account.

The third time Quran mentions Ayyub, i.e. 21:83, the story begins directly from Ayyub’s reaching out to God in supplication while in extreme distress. Ayyub’s words of prayer are quoted but without any mention of Satan, or Satanic role in bringing misery. The verse seems to be stressing Ayyub’s acknowledgment of God’s care and mercy. As a response to Ayyub’s beseeching prayer, God tells us, in the first-person speech, that He removed the distress that had overcome Ayyub, and provided him with more blessings. But also, more importantly, the lesson of the passage seems to be in the end of the verse; God informs us that this is how He showers His grace and blessing upon those who turn to Him.

In the fourth and final passage (38:41), there is an elusive reference to the “evil one” (Lit. Satan) responsible for Ayyub’s condition, but does not provide any further details. What was the exact nature of this responsibility? Elsewhere Quran categorically tells us that Satan has no power over us beyond “malicious suggestions” (e.g. 15:42, 58:10). As Maududi speculates, is it those evil-whisperings that Ayyub is referring to here? (Maududi, 1949, pp. 340, Note 42). This could be a good research question but is somewhat off the scope of our present concern. That being said, the focus of this passage also does not seem to be a theodicy. When God listens to Ayyub’s distressed supplication, instead of magically curing him, God gives him a plan-of-action; do this and you’ll get this. With God-given knowledge, Ayyub now digs up a water-fountain at the specified location and benefits by its healing power. This seems to be according to God’s pattern, commonly referred to in the Quran as the Sunnah of God. We see a similar patter, for example, in the story of Mary, mother of Jesus. During the pangs of childbirth, Mary reaches out to God in distressed supplication, and God gives her a plan-of-action; move the branches of this tree, gather the ripe dates that fall, and drink from this fountain. This seems to be the primary lesson here: God will guide us in this earthly sojourn, but it will be upon us to put our trust in God and take the appropriate action. Again, according to the standard Quranic style, God seems to be bringing this point home via a moving example.

Critical Analysis

Encountering such passing references in the Quran to a full-blown story that preexisted in the earlier scriptures and even in pre-biblical folklore, one is naturally forced to raise the question: Is it assumed that the listener/reader of the Quran has prior knowledge of the story of Job? The answer seems to be yes, because without that background information, the four scattered and brief references do not make much sense. But if a positive answer is to be accepted, the question becomes: what was the source of this story in Arabia? Which version of the story was the common Arab of 7th century familiar with? We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls (Targum of Job 11Q10[iii]: dated 150 BCE – 70 CE) that the text was somewhat different from as now known. What moral and theological conclusions did the Arabs derive from the story they knew?

Ali, in his commentary of the Quran, says the following about the comparison of the story of Job between the Biblical account and the Quranic version:

Of all the Hebrew writings, the Hebrew of this book comes nearest to Arabic. The account given in the Biblical sources and the image that it projects of Prophet Job is decidedly different from that found in the Quran and the Hadith, which present him as a prophet and a brilliant example of dignified patience becoming of a great prophet of Allah ever trustful in Him and His promises. Nothing could be further from the truth than saying that he lost his peace of mind or resorted to curses during the period of his trial. Job is the pattern of humility, patience and faith in Allah. It was with these weapons that he fought and conquered evil.

Considering 21:83, one cannot help but notice that there is no mention of the biblical wager between Satan and God to test the loyalty of Ayyub towards God. Also, the focus of this brief passage does not seem to be the philosophical “Origin of Evil” but rather instruction into profitable behavior through practical example. Here was a guy during times past just like anyone of us today, who was met with extreme distress and hardship in life, and here’s what he did that profited him. What should I do when I’m in a similar situation? That’s the question, it seems, this verse is trying to address.

But with the background knowledge of the Book of Job, it seems that the Quran is missing the whole point here. The real intellectual question is “whence evil?” not “what to do when trapped in evil”. Like Buddhist thought, is the Quran sidestepping the real question? A surface comparison with the Book of Job might suggest so, but on closer inspection, it is evident that Quran does take up the “Origin of Evil” question at other places, e.g. 2:30-39; it just does not seem to be the focus here.


Both stories, in the Bible and in the Quran, are told beautifully. Although the intellectual focus, social context and intended audience is different, both stories have played a major role in formulating understanding and evoking action of the believers in the two religious traditions.

Elsewhere, Quran presents itself as guardian, explainer and protector of the earlier scriptures (5:48, 10:37). What parts does the Quran agree with and what subtle points does the Quran correct in the story as received in the Book of Job? This seems to be a potentially fruitful question for further research.

* Ref – Job in the Quran (Ali, 2008):

We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. (4:163)

We gave him (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good. (6:84)

And (remember) Job, when He cried to his Lord, “Truly distress has seized me, but Thou art the Most Merciful of those that are merciful.” So We listened to him: We removed the distress that was on him, and We restored his people to him, and doubled their number,- as a Grace from Ourselves, and a thing for commemoration, for all who serve Us. (21:83-84)

Commemorate Our Servant Job. Behold he cried to his Lord: “The Evil One has afflicted me with distress and suffering!” (The command was given:) “Strike with thy foot: here is (water) wherein to wash, cool and refreshing, and (water) to drink.” And We gave him (back) his people, and doubled their number,- as a Grace from Ourselves, and a thing for commemoration, for all who have Understanding. “And take in thy hand a little grass, and strike therewith: and break not (thy oath).” Truly We found him full of patience and constancy. How excellent in Our service! ever did he turn (to Us)! (38:41-44)


Ali, A. Y. (2008). Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. Amana Pub.

Ehrman, B. D. (2008). God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer. HarperOne.

Kee, H. C., Meyers, E. M., Regerson, J., & Saldarini, A. J. (1997). The Cambridge Companion to the Bible. Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, C. S. (1964). Reflections on the Psalms. Mariner Books.

Maududi, S. A. (1949). Tafheem-ul-Quran [Urdu] Vol 4. http://www.scholaris.com/pdf/quran/038%20Surah%20Sad.pdf.

[i] Usually, this is located in Edom (Lamentations 4:21), towards the south-east of Israel. This implies that Job is not an Israelite (Ehrman, 2008, p. 164). Edom is an alias for Esau the son of Issac (Genesis 25:30).

[ii] Tradition ascribes the book to Isaiah himself, but for over a hundred years scholars have divided it into three parts: Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1-39), containing the words of the 8th century BCE prophet and 7th century BCE expansions; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40-55), a 6th century BCE work by an author who wrote under the Babylonian captivity; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56-66), composed probably by multiple authors in Jerusalem shortly after the exile. (May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977).

[iii] This small scroll found in Cave 11 has a large portion, in Aramaic, of the last seven chapters of the Book of Job. Twenty-seven small fragments deal with parts of Job 17:14 to 36:33. It represents, along with the small fragments of Leviticus and another scroll of Job also found in Cave 4, the oldest existing text of the Hebrew Bible.


Thank you Muhammad for sharing this nice story.

Anyone familiar with modern political history finds it hard to believe, but it happens to be a fact. Not only that there is a vast cultural overlap between the two religions, more significantly, theologically, Judaism and Islam happen to be the two closest religions. Historically, the two peoples have had their best time together and lived in peace and in the spirit of cooperation for long stretches of time.  Even when the Jews were persecuted in all Christian lands as “God killers” and “social parasites”, Muslims embraced them as the respected “people of the book”.

This story is only but a small testament to the veracity of that brotherly relationship. One can only hope and pray that the contemporary nasty fight between the two Semitic cousins, over a piece of real-estate, could be resolved amicably, though the current attitudes do not seem to be heading in that direction.


We begin by laying down our methodology and understanding of Pluralism as a respectful and engaging yet critical examination of each other’s religions. We then move on to present, in broad strokes, some of the most fundamental commonalities and differences between Islam and Christianity. We identify Original Sin, Incarnation and Atonement as Christian doctrines to which Islam takes exception. We then provide a brief review of Original Sin and Incarnation from Christian sources and record the reasons for Muslim objections. Finally, we move on to a detailed account of the doctrine of Atonement from some original Christian sources and highly influential Christian thinkers before contrasting it with the Qur’anic position and Muslim understanding. Our comparison shows that both religions are so well entrenched on this issue, and hold such fundamentally divergent views that the doctrine of Atonement will remain the irreconcilable dividing line.

Pluralism and the Religious Boundaries:

Millenniums ago, Socrates told us that, “the unexamined life is not worth living”, but in today’s global village, this aphorism is not mere intellectual babbling – it is sine qua non for a livable planet. A world so enriched as ours with religious diversity across traditional national boundaries simply cannot function peacefully with mere tacit tolerance of the “other” religion. Pluralism goes beyond the necessary public virtue of tolerance, and demands energetic engagement and seeking of understanding across religious lines. Nevertheless, as Eck explains, this does not mean Religious Relativism[1] – far from it. It is rather encounter of commitments. She states, “The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.” [2]

Pluralism is based on such open dialog with which we cannot only appreciate each other’s perspective, but can also acquire a deeper understanding of our own theological positions. In fact, it is a great God-given opportunity[3], for without having something with which to contrast, we would not be able to reflect and understand our own selves, nor had an occasion to compete for righteousness and truth[4]. Thus, on one hand, we should appreciate the commonalities of our two religions and on the other, understand, acknowledge and respect the boundaries that separate our unique understandings. It is better to accept and reflect on such boundaries than to try to obfuscate the reality by pulling and stretching the underlying texts and interpretations. Some well-intentioned scholars of comparative religion do a great disservice to the sincere truth seeker by going too far in harmonizing[5] the opposing views and thus muddling the clear boundaries. We say disservice, because “Man by nature desires to know” the true the good and the beautiful (said Aristotle); and “man is doomed to love the good” and pursue the true and the beautiful (said Plato)[6]. Understanding each other’s distinct theological position does not imply extending tacit acceptance, showing synthesis or even being intellectually noncritical of the opposing position. Because, as al-Faruqi said, “[T]he problem is not one of approving of or adopting that which agrees or can be made to agree with us but of what to do with that which contradicts us, that which stands on the other side of us.”[7]

The discussion that follows is based on such understanding of Pluralism, and is intended to highlight the two unique theological positions in Islam and Christianity.

Commonality and Conflict between Islam and Christianity:

One only needs to look at the non-Semitic religions and other non-religious worldviews to appreciate the vast common ground between Christianity and Islam. Starting from monotheism to the belief in angels and devil, heaven and hell, prophets and scriptures, afterlife and an active and personal God – the overlap goes on and on. Even around the figure and personality of Jesus Christ, there are more shared beliefs than differences. Muslims, for example, believe that Jesus was a genuine and faithful messenger of God who garners their utmost reverence, respect and following; that he was born miraculously without a father; that his mother, Mary, was a chaste and honorable woman; that he gave life to the dead and healed blinds and lepers by God’s permission. Muslims also believe that he was the Christ (Lit. anointed, appointed) and that he received revelation from God called Injeel (Lit. Gospel). All this, Muslims believe, on the unambiguous authority of the Qur’an.

The theological differences between Islam and Christianity, however, remain and are not trivial by any measure. To begin with, Christianity dose not acknowledge Muhammad as a true messenger of God, and by implication, rejects Qur’an as God’s message to humanity. On the part of Islam, the Church dogmas of Original Sin, Incarnation and Atonement remain problematic and inconsistent with Qur’anic worldview. Because these three notions are so closely intertwined in Christian theology, we shall look at the first two briefly before turning our attention to the doctrine of Atonement in detail.

Since there are thousands of different sects and denominations in Christianity, having more or less unique and subtle differences on these issues, it is not possible to review them all here in any comprehensive way. We, thus, intend to limit our discussion to the mainstream Christian perspective and to a handful of the most influential thinkers and theologians.

Doctrine of Original Sin:

Also known as the ‘Ancestral Sin’ by Eastern Orthodox Church, Original Sin refers to Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit in heaven, and the resultant “Fall of Man”. With this first act of disobedience and sin against God, according to Christian theology, human nature was corrupted irreparably, and since then, every human infant inherits that Sin. The proponents of this doctrine find scriptural bases in the teachings of Paul[8], and see it as implied in some Old Testament passages[9]. The doctrine was first developed by Irenaeus[10] (d. 202 CE) in his struggle against Gnosticism, and was further developed by St. Augustine (d. 430 CE) and Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 CE)[11].  St. Augustine and St. Anselm (d. 1109) both reached the logical conclusion that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of this hereditary sin[12]. During the Reformation, the doctrine was propounded and popularized by Martin Luther (d. 1546)[13] and John Calvin (d. 1564) [14]; however, Huldrych Zwingli (d. 1531)[15] was very skeptical of it[16]. Although mainstream, not all Christian denominations and theologians accept the doctrine of Original Sin. Pelagian controversies[17] in ancient times, and Unity Church[18] and Matthew Fox[19] in modern times, are but a few examples that accentuate the ongoing internal tension within Christianity around this doctrine.

Both Judaism[20] and Islam emphatically reject the idea of Original Sin. Instead, both religions teach that man enters the world free of sin, with a pure, innocent and untainted soul.

Doctrine of Incarnation:

Incarnation (Lit. “make into flesh” or “become flesh”) is the Church doctrine that asserts and explains how God became man in the form of Jesus Christ. The most cited scripture purporting this doctrine is John 1:14[21]. In the first few centuries of Christian era, there was considerable disagreement amongst Christians regarding Incarnation. Ebionites, for example, were the Jews who came to believe in Jesus Christ’s message but were vehemently opposed to the idea of God becoming man. As history unfolded however, the precise definition of Incarnation started to get formulated by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. These councils declared that Jesus was both fully God: begotten from, but not created by the Father; and fully man: taking his flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary. These two natures, human and divine, were in essence, united into the one personhood of Jesus Christ[22]. Since the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the expression “begotten, not made” has been part of almost all Christian creeds and catechisms.

Trinity is another related Church doctrine to which most Muslims are familiar because of its mention and unequivocal rejection in the Qur’an[23]. However, on closer examination, Incarnation seems a bigger logical problem, and Trinity merely a by-product; for if God did not become man, there would be no need for such a mystical and convoluted theological maneuvering like Trinity by the fourth century Church to explain that phenomenon in terms of triune nature of God. Not all Christian denominations, however, believe in Incarnation. Arianism[24] in early fourth century and Unitarian Christians, for example, do not believe Jesus was God, and thus feel no need to resort to Incarnation.

A Muslim’s Critique of the Doctrine of Incarnation:

To Islam, of course, the idea of Incarnation is most abominable and illogical. As al-Faruqi explained, in Islam, there is duality of Reality, “God and non-God; Creator and creature”[25], with no room for demigods or verbal acrobats. Even a casual reader cannot fail to notice that the Qur’an is absolutely adamant about tawhid; not only that there is no other God besides Allah[26], “there is nothing like unto him”[27].  Elaborating this point further al-Faruqi says[28], “The error most grievous to Semitic consciousness and hence least pardonable in the eye of God[29], Islam identified as that of misconceiving the transcendence of God.” Christianity fell “to the non-Semitic influence of the ‘mystery religions’” and gave the “de-transcendentalizing ontological connotation of unity of substance between God and Jesus”, and although it gained “success among non-Semitic peoples unfamiliar with the notion of God as ‘totally other’” at its formative stage, it lost its Semitic originality in the bargain.

Christian scholars, however, allege that Qur’an and Muslims criticize only “a perceived distortion of Tawhid” without understanding the subtly of Trinity. Murata and Chittick, for instance, quote the Qur’anic verse (5:73), “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One”, and then go on to assert that, “Even an elementary knowledge of any Christian catechism tells us that God is not ‘the third of three’. Rather God is one and three at the same time[30]. Muslims, on the other hand, object to the use of exactly this kind of obfuscating and meaningless language while talking about God. Number One and Number Three, Muslims point out, are two distinct mathematical categories which can never be the same. It is to say that God is circle and square at the same time; an assertion that is wrong by definition, and does not require any external knowledge to understand its error, that is to say, it is self-evidently erroneous. Muslims also point out that there, in fact, are some Christian denominations (e.g. LDS), even to this day, that do believe God to be “one of three” and probably were in seventh century as well. However, the more pragmatic question is, why say trinity? If God is One, why then not stop saying Trinity as Qur’an asks, and just call Him One? In light of the fact that Jesus never taught trinity, even according to the NT record, and that it was a later day understanding to which the Church arrived at during the third century, the question is worth musing.

Doctrine of Atonement:

What, for a common Christian, is embodied in the expression “Christ died for my sins”[32], is the doctrine of Atonement[31] that describes how humanity came to be reconciled with God after having its nature corrupted by Adam’s “Fall” as described above under Original Sin. In Christian theology, the doctrine of Atonement refers to God’s forgiving of human sin through the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion, which made possible the reconciliation between God and man.

Among Christian thinkers, there are four popular theories explaining exactly how such Atonement could work, namely, the Sacrifice or Ransom Theory, the Victory theory, the Satisfaction or Forgiveness theory and the Moral Influence theory. As McGrath points out though, the views of most Christian authors writing on the subject do not fit neatly in any one category[33].

The underlying action in all four different renderings of this dogma, however, remains the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ – a point categorically denied[34] by the Qur’an as an historic event – thus making it forever irreconcilable between Islam and Christianity. Our objective in this paper, however, is to go beyond that and demonstrate that even the supposed achievement of Jesus Christ (i.e., atoning someone else’s sin) is incompatible with the Qur’anic principle of individual and personal responsibility. Nevertheless, let us first see how some of the original ancient and Reformation thinkers understood Atonement. This will provide us with the bigger picture of how, in their estimation, the above-mentioned three doctrines fit together in a coherent system of thought.

Atonement as Sacrifice or Ransom:

The sacrificial interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus is mostly based on the NT books of Hebrews and Romans, especially Paul’s use of the Greek term hilasterion in Romans 3:25[35]. In his highly influential work, City of God, Augustine elucidated the idea that humanity needed to be restored to God, and that Christ “was made a sacrifice for sin, offering himself as a whole brunt offering on the cross” to achieve that purpose. Writing on the meaning of this sacrifice, he goes on to say that, “he [Jesus] purged, abolished and extinguished whatever guilt there was by which the principalities and powers lawfully detained us to pay the penalty”[36].

Writing on Jesus Christ’s role as Mediator, Calvin notes the following, (emphasis added):

“We have in him [Jesus] a Priest and Mediator free from all blemish, who by his own holiness can conciliate God to us. But since we are debarred from access to God by his righteous curse, an atoning sacrifice is requisite to turn away his anger; it was therefore necessary that Christ, as our Mediator, should offer such a sacrifice… by the sacrifice of his death he has blotted out our guilt and made satisfaction for our sins.”[37]

Explaining further our debarred status, Calvin says:

“neither we nor our prayers can have access to God unless our Priest [Jesus] purges away our defilements, sanctifies us, and obtains for us that favour of which we are deprived by the impurity of our crimes and vices.”[38]

In the next chapter of the same work, under the tile “The redeeming work of Christ”, Calvin goes on to say:

“But let a man be told as the scripture tells him, that he had been alienated from God by sin, was an heir of wrath, under the curse of eternal death, shut out of all hope of salvation, the slave of Satan, a captive under the yoke of sin, doomed to terrible destruction, and already involved in it: that then Christ stepped in as an intercessor, took upon himself and endured the penalty justly due to sinners, atoned with his own blood for the evil which had rendered man hatful in the sight of God, and thus laid the foundation for peace between God and man.”[39]

Tying his scriptural understanding back to the idea of Original Sin, he goes on to state:

“We all have within ourselves that which merits God’s hatred. Therefore, by our corrupted nature and the evil life that flows from it, we are all guilty before God and fitted from our very birth for the damnation to hell.[40]

Supporting this elaborate theological understanding of “Christ died for our sins”, Calvin provides Paul[41] and Augustine as his authorities, besides providing one verse where Jesus Christ says, “The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many” (Mat 20:28). A neutral and rational observer, however, reading this chapter, cannot help but notice Jesus Christ’s categorical denial of Divinity just five verses before the quoted verse. In verse 23, he replies to the mother of the Zebedee’s sons, when she requested an honorable place for her sons, that he [Jesus] does not hold the authority to grant her wish.[42]

Atonement as Victory:

Victory theory can be seen as a logical evolution of Ransom theory. It was perhaps Origen[43] who first raised the question: if Christ’s death was a ransom, to whom was it paid? Origen argued that it could not have been paid to God, as God was not holding the sinners to ransom. He, thus, logically concluded that it must be paid to the Devil. Further building on this idea, Gregory the Great (d. 604 CE)[44] came up with highly speculative theology as described below by McGrath.

“The devil had acquired rights over fallen humanity, which God was obliged to respect. The only means by which the humanity could be released from this satanic domination and oppression was through the devil exceeding the limits of his authority and thus being obliged to forfeit his rights. So how could this be achieved? Gregory suggests that it could come about if a sinless person were to enter the world, yet in the form of a normal sinful person. The devil will not notice until it was too late: in claiming authority over this sinless person, the devil would have overstepped the limits of his authority, and thus be obliged to abandon his rights… [in] the image of a baited hook: Christ’s humanity is the bait, and his divinity the hook. The devil, like a sea-monster, snaps at the bait – and then discovers, too late, the hook…Other writers explored other images for the same idea – that for trapping the devil. Christ’s death was like a net for catching birds, or a trap for catching mice.”[45]

Among the Enlightenment thinkers, the Christus Victor approach fell out of favor and was dismissed as a pre-modern superstition, until 1930 when Gustaf Aulen (d. 1977)[46] reintroduced it with his short but highly influential book with the same title. Aulen described his as “classic approach to Christus Victor[47] and described it as the following:

“Its central theme is the idea of the Atonement as a Divine conflict and victory; Christ – Christus Victor – fights against and triumphs against the evil powers of the world, the ‘Tyrants’ under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him [Jesus] God reconciles the world to Himself.”[48]

The social context of the horrors of WW-I combined with the Freudian insights into human subconscious – especially, the supposed proclivity of infants and children towards sin – helped re-popularize this approach.

Atonement as Satisfaction or Forgiveness:

Satisfaction theory focuses on Jesus Christ providing a valid basis by which God is enabled to forgive sin. Associated to Anselm, as its developer in his work ‘Cur Deus homo’ (Lit. Why God became Man), this approach presents sin as man’s predicament from which humanity is unable to break free. “However, the situation can be remedied if a satisfaction is made for sin. In other words, something has to be done, by which the offense by human sin can be purged”[49]. Since humanity could not provide such a necessary satisfaction for God’s offended honor and dignity, a “God-man” with the ability (divinity) and obligation (humanity) would be needed to do the job. The motivation for Anselm for devising with this approach was his deep-seated dissatisfaction with the Christus Victor approach, which to him seemed laden with highly questionable assumptions about the “rights of the devil” and God’s trickery into trapping the Devil.

This notion of satisfaction against the offense of “sin against God” was further developed by Thomas Aquinas, by attributing “infinite worth” to the flesh of Christ, as he reasoned, it was the “flesh of God”. Aquinas pointed out that, “Christ’s significance in this matter does not rest on his humanity, but on his divinity”.[50]

Later, during Reformation, this idea of Substitution gained central position in both Luther’s and Calvin’s theology. McGrath explains it is as below:

“Christ is here understood to be a substitute, the one who goes to the cross in our place. Sinners ought to have been crucified, on account of their sins. Christ is crucified in their place. God allows Christ to stand is our place, taking our guilt upon himself, so that his righteousness – won by obedience upon the cross – might become ours.”[51]

In 1948, in his thirteen-volume, highly influential, magnum opus, Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth (d. 1968)[52] used the term Sundermensch (Lit. person of sin) emphasizing the inseparability  of sin from human nature. The cross of Christ, in his opinion, represented the point where the righteous judge gave his judgment on sinful humanity, and at the same time, took the judgment upon himself. Under the section “The Judge Judged in Our Place”, Barth says,

“He Judged, and it was the judge who was judged, who allowed himself to be judged …Why did God become a human being? So that God as a human being might do and accomplish and achieve and complete all this of us wrongdoers, in order that in this way there might be brought about by him our reconciliation with him, and our conversion to him.”[53]

On the same note, in 1974, James I. Packer (b. 1926)[54] further elaborated,

“Christ offered to God what the West has called satisfaction for sins, satisfaction which God’s own character dictated as the only means whereby his ‘no’ to us could become a ‘yes’… by undergoing the cross Jesus expiated our sins, propitiated our Maker, turned God’s ‘no’ to us into a ‘yes’ and so saved us.”[55]

Atonement as Moral Influence or Example:

The model of a martyr, instead of a savior, became extremely influential in rationalist circles during nineteenth century Europe. In this picture, Jesus was seen as embodying certain qualities, which were potentially present in all human beings with only the difference in magnitude – Jesus embodying such qualities to the superior extent. Thus, “the person who died upon the cross was a human being, and the impact of that death is upon human beings. That impact takes the form of inspiration and encouragement to model ourselves upon the moral example set us in Jesus himself.”[56]

On the same theme, Schleiermatcher (d. 1834)[57] argued that,

“redemption consist in the stimulation and elevation of the natural human God-consciousness through the ‘entrance of the living influence of Christ.’ He attributes to Christ ‘an absolutely powerful God-consciousness.’ This, he argues, possesses an assimilative power of such intensity that it is able to bring about the redemption of humanity.”[58]

Criticism of Atonement by Christian Enlightenment Thinkers:

After a long intellectual slumber through a millennium of dark-ages, the West finally woke up to a new life historically known as Enlightenment. This period of intense intellectual activity produced many thinkers and scientists who changed the life of common man for good. A case has been made[59] by several authors that the torch of the Enlightenment and Reformation was passed on to the West by the Islamic civilization in Spain and in the Fertile Crescent. That point, however, is not our chief concern here. One point in comparison is worth pointing out though. From the very beginning, the scripture of Islam (i.e., the Qur’an), had been in the hands of the common person, in a language he well understood, and had been open for reflection and interpretation by the masses. Christianity, although predating Islam by some six hundred years, did not have this advantage up until this period of Enlightenment. The scriptures in Christianity (i.e., the Old and the New Testaments), had been locked away from the masses by the Church, with very limited access available in vernacular[60]. Reformation and Enlightenment opened that floodgate, and enabled Western thinkers to reflect and discuss the age-old church dogmas in the fresh light of translated scriptures. Unavoidably, that brought the freethinking minds closer to what the Qur’an had been saying on these issues for a millennium, as can be clearly seen below.

Overall, the doctrine of Atonement did not fit very well with the Enlightenment thinkers. John Locke, for example, in his Reasonableness of Christianity, published in 1695, completely ignored the idea of “sacrifice for sin” and asserted that the only necessary article of faith for Christians was “Christ’s Messiahship”.  Similarly, Thomas Chubb, in his True Gospel of Jesus Christ Vindicated, published in 1739, argued that the notion of Christ’s crucifixion as a sacrifice only arises from the apologetic concerns of the early Christian writers. He went on to say that, “God’s disposition to show mercy…arises wholly from his own innate goodness or mercifulness, and not from anything external to him, whether it be the suffering and death of Jesus Christ or otherwise”.[61]

Furthermore, neither the Satisfaction approach nor the Chritus Victor approach, to atonement, matched well with the Enlightenment theme. Here is how McGrath summed up[62] the Enlightenment critique in two points:

  1. It [atonement] appeared to rest upon a notion of original guilt, which Enlightenment writers found unacceptable. Each human being was responsible for his or her own moral guilt; the very notion of an inherited guilt, as it was expressed in the traditional doctrine of original sin, was to be rejected.
  2. The Enlightenment insisted upon the rationality, and perhaps above all the morality, of every aspect of Christian doctrine. This theory of the atonement appeared to be morally suspect, especially in its notions of transferred guilt or merit. The central idea of “vicarious satisfaction” was also regarded with acute suspicion: In what sense was it moral for one human being to bear the penalties due for another?

Qur’anic Perspective on the Doctrine of Atonement:

As mentioned earlier, the Qur’anic criticism of Atonement is twofold, first, the unequivocal denial of Crucifixion as an historic event, and second, in conformity with the Enlightenment idea, the moral groundlessness of “vicarious satisfaction”.

The first Qur’anic exception, of course, does not leave much room for discussion – if the man never died on the cross (and Qur’an is as categorical on this issue as one can be), that puts the whole issue at rest. This issue remained, and will remain, the most irreconcilable dividing line between Christianity and Islam, as Paul states in 1 Cor 15, that if Christ did not die and was not risen, “then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain”.

That, however, leaves room for discussion on what happened instead – the interpretations of exactly how “it appeared to them so”. Many Muslim and Christian authors have written about it, and many diverging theories have been proposed throughout the fourteen hundred years since the Qur’an first made that claim.

The second Qur’anic exception is more interesting to our focus here, and affords much more space to open discussion. To begin with, it is worthwhile to explain that Qur’an does not see itself as establishing a new religion, but rather restoring the same old true religion of God that was sent to humanity over and over again in the history, while humanity kept falling into forgetfulness, corrupting the original message. Thus, it is no surprise that the Qur’anic principles find glimpses in the Old Testament, passages like that of the 6th century BC book of Ezekiel. The rational Enlightenment idea of the moral groundlessness of transferred guilt or merit is beautifully and succinctly captured here:

“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.” Ezekiel 18: 20 NIV

Qur’an repeatedly confirms the same idea and presents it as a core principle of its moral foundation, as the following examples illustrate:

“Or has he never yet been told of what was [said] in the revelations of Moses, and that of Abraham, who to his trust was true: that no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another’s burden; and that nothing shall be accounted unto man but what he strived for; and that in time all his striving will be shown [to him]” (Qur’an 53:36-40)

“Say: Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than God when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards God. He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed.” (Qur’an 6:164)

“Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Qur’an 17:15)

“Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another’s burdens if one heavily laden should call another to (bear) his load. Not the least portion of it can be carried (by the other). Even though he be nearly related. Thou canst but admonish such as fear their Lord unseen and establish regular Prayer. And whoever purifies himself does so for the benefit of his own soul; and the destination (of all) is to God.” (Qur’an 35:18)

If ye reject (God), Truly God hath no need of you; but He liketh not ingratitude from His servants: if ye are grateful, He is pleased with you. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. In the end, to your Lord is your return, when He will tell you the truth of all that ye did (in this life), for He knoweth well all that is in (men’s) hearts. (Qur’an 39:7)

Qur’anic perspective on the issue of “vicarious satisfaction” is thus as clear as daylight: no one can die or pay for someone else’s wrongdoings nor take credit for someone else’s good actions. Each person is individually and personally responsible for one’s deeds (and only one’s deeds), and will have to stand one day in front of one’s creator to give an account.

A Muslim’s Critique of the Doctrine of Atonement:

Even at a cursory glance, a Muslim thinker cannot help but notice that the authoritative scriptures proffered by the Christian theologians propping the doctrine of atonement almost exclusively come from the writings of Paul, and almost never from Jesus Christ. Given the primacy of the concept of God in religious thought, and especially the centrality of monotheism in Semitic thought, one would expect that some clearer message would be found from the lips of the master. Something that does not require an educated theologian’s imagination, but could be comprehended by first century uneducated fishermen as well, perhaps something comparable to the clarity of Hebrew Shema[63] or Qur’anic Ikhlas[64].

A Muslim thinker also notices that the doctrine of Atonement presupposes that death is an evil that needs to be conquered. Qur’an, however, teaches that the earthly journey of man is only a transitory stage in his moral and intellectual development. Just as a caterpillar does not consider the cocoon to be an evil, but rather preparation for passage into an exciting new stage, so, the Qur’an teaches, is the life and death of this world, and that God is with us every step of the way through this journey.

Finally, there also exists, a presupposition implicit in this doctrine that humanity needs to be atoned for, or saved from. If such a condition exists, the question becomes, what is that condition? Ignorance? Sin? Death? Meaninglessness? Forgetfulness? Many similar ideas have been discussed in human intellectual history, but the Qur’an tells us that if man is in any imminent danger, it is only from within himself,that is, from his own ego. As the idea of the origination of the sin in the Qur’an illustrates[65], it is the ‘I’, when it becomes too big, that stuns the human moral development.


We started this paper by disassociating Pluralism from Relativism because we believe that men of religion, in their religious claims, do not “assert a tentative hypothesis, nor a truth among other truths, or a version of truth among other possible versions, but the truth. This is so much part of the religious experience … that to deny it is to caricature the religion as a whole. Neither Islam nor Christianity can or will ever give it up. Certainly this is exclusivism; but the truth is exclusive.”[66] This is only a starting point; the discussions will continue. There is no reason why Christians and Muslims cannot be close friends and yet hold intellectual differences. This way, both sides will be saved the agony of over stretching their fabrics to cover what cannot be covered reasonably, and it will also leave room for self-reflection, and if convinced, to embrace the other side.

On the issue of the doctrine of Atonement, we have tried to show how Islamic and Christian perspectives are unique and divergent, and that the underlying reasons for these differences are foundational to the two belief systems. It, thus, seems reasonable to conclude that on the issue of Atonement, no synthesis is possible between the two religions, and that the only option left open to us as individuals is to exercise our intellect and freewill and choose a side.


  1. al Faruqi, I. R. (1982). Al Tawhid. IIIT.
  2. al Faruqi, I. R. (1998). Islam and Other Faiths.
  3. Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
  4. Eck, D. L. (2010). The Pluralism Project at Harvard University. Retrieved from What is Pluralism?: http://pluralism.org/pages/pluralism/what_is_pluralism
  5. International Theological Commission. (2010). Study by International Theological Commission . Retrieved from The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
  6. Jewish Virtual library. (2010). Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin. Retrieved 07 28, 2010, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html
  7. McGrath, E. A. (1997). Christian Theology: An Introduction (second edition).
  8. Murata, S., & Chittick, W. C. (1994). The Vision of Islam. NY: Paragon House.
  9. Schaff, P. (1900). NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Retrieved 2010, from Christian Classics Ethereal Library: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html
  10. Unity.org. (2010). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://unity.org/aboutunity/whoWeAre/faq.html#teachings
  11. Wiles, J. P. (1966). Instruction in Christianity, an abbreviated edition of the ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’ by John Calvin. Sovereign Grace Union.

[1] Relativism is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths but only individual perspectives. In other words, truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a Religion or Culture. It reduces Values to Tastes, and is often understood in terms of Plato vs. Protagoras dialogs, as two intellectual opponents. Plato believed in Objective Truth, but Protagoras famously said, “Man is the measure of all things“.

[2] Eck, 2010

[3] “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.” (Qur’an 49:13)

[4] “If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute” (Qur’an 5:48)

[5] Prof. Mahmoud Ayoub, in the book A Muslim View of Christianity, desperately tries to prove that the Qur’an does not deny Crucifixion. Despite the unequivocal message of the Qur’an on this issue, Ayoub goes on to present the translation of the verse (Q 4:157) that emphatically states, “for of a surety they killed him [Jesus] not”, as “they did not slay knowledge with certainty” (p. 166). For Ayoub, it would be “divine deception” (p. 176-177) if Jesus was in fact not crucified and God left humanity in the dark for six hundred years until Qur’an came to clarify. Our perspective on that issue is simple; it is not God but people that deceive each other (as was in this case), and although God is not in the business of running an up to date www.whatreallyhappened.com, He does support the truth, when and where He sees fit.

[6] al Faruqi (1998). p. 261

[7] al Faruqi (1998). p. 271

[8] “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned…For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:12-21); “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22)

[9] “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5); “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” (Psalm 58:3)

[10] Catholic Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France)

[11] Cross & Livingstone, 2005. article Original Sin

[12] International Theological Commission, 2010

[13] Martin Luther was a German priest and professor of theology who initiated the Protestant Reformation with publication of his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. Luther taught that salvation does not come from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.

[14] John Calvin was the most influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism, and is known for his so-called ‘double predestination’: that God chose some humans for salvation through Christ and others for damnation. Nothing they could ever do to change that predestination.

[15] Huldrych (or Ulrich) Zwingli was an influential leader of the Reformation in Switzerland. Influenced by the writings of Erasmus and his own humanist education, Zwingli placed the authority of the scripture above other sources such as the ecumenical councils or the Church Fathers.

[16] McGrath, 1997. p. 517

[17] Pelagius (d. 420/440 CE), one of the most influential early Church Fathers, denied Original Sin

[18] unity.org, 2010. What are Unity’s basic teachings? #2

[19] Matthew Fox (b. 1940) is an American Episcopal priest and theologian. His books have sold millions of copies and by the mid 1990s had a “huge and diverse following”. Due to controversy surrounding his denial of original sin, he was forbidden to teach theology by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

[20] Jewish Virtual Library, 2010

[21] McGrath, 1997. p. 199. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” KJV

[22] Schaff, 1900

[23] “Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God…” Qur’an 4:171

[24] Arius (250 – 336 CE) was a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, which emphasized the Father’s Divinity over the Son, and his opposition to the Athanasian or Trinitarian Christology, made him a controversial figure in the First Council of Nicea, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 CE.

[25] al-Farqui (1982). p. 10

[26] The Arabic word Allah is a composite of two words, Al – meaning ‘The’, and Illah – meaning ‘Deity’. Thus the expression Allah literally only means ‘The Deity’ or ‘The True Deity’.

[27] “and there is nothing that could be compared with Him” (Quran 112:4)

[28] al-Farqui (1982). p. 20-22

[29] “God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.” (Qur’an 4:48)

[30] Murata & Chittick (1994). p. 170

[31] The original Christian theological term is Atonement but McGrath considers it “cumbersome and unhelpful” and uses instead the term Salvation. p. 391. We stick with the original term here for the sake of simplicity and continuity, as the original sources we refer all use the term Atonement.

[32] Says Paul in 1 Cor 15:3

[33] McGrath, 1997. p. 391

[34] “That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.” (Qur’an 4:157)

[35] “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rom 3:25) NIV

[36] McGrath, 1997. p. 391-392

[37] Wiles, (1966). p. 135

[38] Wiles, (1966). p. 135

[39] Wiles, (1966). p. 136

[40] Wiles, (1966). p. 137

[41] He mentions Eph 1:4, Rom 5:19, Gal 4:4, 1 Cor 15:3

[42] “but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father” (Mat 20:23)

[43] Origen Adamantius, (c.185–254 CE) was an early Christian scholar, Commentator and theologian, and one of the most distinguished writers of the early Christian Church who taught in Alexandria Egypt.

[44] Gregory the Great, was the first of the popes to come from a monastic background. He was pope from 590 – 604 CE and is well-known for his writings, which were more prolific than those of any of his predecessors as pope. Gregory is a Doctor of the Church and one of the six Latin Fathers. He is considered a saint in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Immediately after his death, Gregory was canonized by popular acclaim. John Calvin admired Gregory and declared in his Institutes, that Gregory was the last good pope.

[45] McGrath, 1997. p. 395-396

[46] Gustaf Emanuel Hildebrand Aulén (1879 – 1977) was the Bishop of Strängnäs in the Church of Sweden, a theologian, and the author of Christus Victor, a work which still exerts considerable influence on contemporary theological thinking on Atonement.

[47] Aulén identified three main theories of the Atonement: the ‘scholastic’ view, epitomised by Anselm of Canterbury (known as Satisfaction theory); the ‘idealistic’ view, epitomised by Peter Abelard (known as Moral Exemplar theory); and what he referred to as the ‘classic’ view.

[48] McGrath, 1997. p. 398

[49] McGrath, 1997. p. 400

[50] McGrath, 1997. p. 402

[51] McGrath, 1997. p. 403

[52] Karl Barth was a Swiss Reformed theologian considered among the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century; Pope Pius XII described him as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas. Other critics referred to him as the father of neo-orthodoxy.

[53] McGrath, 1997. p. 406

[54] James Innell Packer is a British-born Canadian Christian Calvinist theologian who is a Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He is considered one of the most influential evangelicals in North America.

[55] McGrath, 1997. p. 407

[56] McGrath, 1997. p. 409

[57] Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834) known as the “Father of Modern Protestant Theology” was a German theologian and philosopher known for his attempt to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant orthodoxy.

[58] McGrath, 1997. p. 409

[59] For example, How Islam Created the Modern World by Mark Graham (2006). Also, the article published in The Independent, How Islamic inventors changed the world by Paul Vallely (03/11/2006) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-changed-the-world-469452.html

[60] Church has a long and well documented history of persecuting the translators of the Bible and burning the books but is out of scope for our current discussion. Here we only want to point out the fact that the Bible was not translated into English language until the middle of the 16th century. King James Authorized Version was the first popular version printed in 1611. Before this time, Christian scripture was practically not available to a common Christian for understanding and reflection.

[61] McGrath, 1997. p. 393

[62] McGrath, 1997. p. 403

[63] “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one”

[64] “Say! God is One” (Qur’an 112:1)

[65] According to the Qur’an, the psychological motivation behind Devil’s disobedience and rebellion was clearly his puffed up ego, epitomized in his reply, “I’m better than him”. (e.g. Qur’an 7:12, 38:76, 2:34)

[66] al Faruqi (1998). p. 246

Just last weekend, I found myself dragged into an intense conversation with some friends into the whole controversy of “Draw Muhammad Day” on Facebook. We all agreed that the Muslim response to this lunacy should be that of kindness and best civic behavior – just as Muhammad himself would have responded. As the Qur’an commands us, “show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant” (7:199). However, we disagreed, in principle, whether what these people are doing constitutes freedom of speech or something else.

Some of my friends argued that people slandering Prophet Muhammad on Facebook and on other platforms, are only exercising their freedom of speech – a price that must be paid for living in a free society like America. These friends told me that I can exercise my right to the same freedom by, say, burning the American flag in public, or even peeing over it (a reference to the expression “piss be upon him” that these people are using for Prophet Muhammad, as opposed to the expression, “peace be upon him” that Muslims use for all prophets, including Jesus and Moses).

I knew that there was something wrong with this argument but could not quite put my thumb on it. I knew I could not, for example, publically deny holocaust and not have to bear the consequences. Would the law and the media, equally protect and uphold my right to the freedom of speech in that scenario? I was told by my friends that it will.

And then I received this message from another friend http://propakistani.pk/2010/05/23/one-facebook-two-faces-one-is-real-ugly

Where does the truth lie?

Thank you Asif for forwarding this nice lecture/article.


As I read/heard this seasoned researcher and articulate scholar, I kept thinking that AIPAC, Zionist think-tanks and Americans United for Israel must have thought through this inevitable outcome of their policies, and must have considered the tricky task ahead of them of defending the coming Israeli apartheid in American public opinion arena. Strategically for them, an America with weakened democratic values, or better, an America with some form of apartheid of her own, maybe, in the form of socially tolerated racial profiling against the Arab Americans or American Muslims in general, in the name of national security, would present an easier ground for this defense. At this point in time, the idea might sound farfetched, but the history shows us that nations do not always follow a moral climb but do degenerate as well. Many were the world superpowers of their times that now stand as stark reminders of this completed cycle. The lessons of the American civil rights era can be forgotten and the progress in the field of liberty can be eroded rather quickly by playing politics of fear. I personally think that this processes of ground preparation is already well underway here at home.

This last weekend, 02/27/2010, some of us friends got together in my basement. We watched a video of Dr. Jeffrey Lang delivering a lecture on the topic of ‘Purpose of Life’ (full version available here). This stimulating lecture was followed by a passionate and intellectual discussion. In the lines that follow, I’ll try to summarize what we learned and discussed, interlaced with some of my own conclusions, comments and relevant material from other sources. As always, please feel free to jump in and share your thoughts on this online forum.

The question can simply be stated like this: Why are we here? Or, in other words, given an all-loving, all-powerful God, which we believe exists, why are human beings suffering on this rotten planet, instead of being somewhere else, like, for example, in heaven? And not only that we suffer; we have intellect to understand the reasons and raise questions about our suffering. Giving us the intelligence of this degree and then allowing us to suffer is like operating on a patient without Morphine. We see animals suffer on this planet too, but without the human intellect, animals at least are not so acutely conscious of it. Undoubtedly, it’s this awareness that is most painful. If God loved us, why would He put us here, where we can experience terrible pain and agony, disappointments and broken hearts, horrible diseases and earthquakes, murders and rapes and other ingenious methods of torture that some humans are capable of inventing and executing on other fellow beings. The simplistic answer, ‘we are here as a test’ does not really cut it. The purpose of a test is for the examiner to know better about the worth of the test-taker. In this case, the Examiner already knows everything there is to know, because He’s all-knowing. Logically speaking, there’s nothing we can do that can increase God’s knowledge. So why put us through this painful drama? Some people will tell you that this test is not for increasing God’s knowledge but yours. And further, that everything that had to happen has already happened; we are living this life now only to understand our choices. The science-fiction movie Matrix is a case in point. I, personally, don’t find it convincing at all – all this elaborate and agonizing drama to give me knowledge? – I don’t think so. There could be easier, and certainly less painful, ways for God to grant me that knowledge. In our meeting, we discussed the case of termites – the amazing engineering skills and the wonderful buildings this blind creature erects with that skill and knowledge. We discussed the remarkable fact that all this knowledge is bestowed to this creature right from the birth. If it was only knowledge I needed, why couldn’t God grant me such knowledge in a way similar to that?

Dr. Lang points out that in order for a relationship to develop, the two parties must have some common ground. Greater the common ground, stronger will be the resulting bond and relationship. Describing different levels of relationship, he offers the example of his own relationship with his goldfish, his dog and his daughter. With increasing common ground at each higher level, the bond gets stronger. Because we are more intellectual than physical beings, the best companionship develops with convergence of ideas and common personality characteristics. The only possibility of such common ground, between humans and God, lies in the moral dimension i.e. the adjectival nouns or attributes of God, e.g. mercy, truth, care, compassion, benevolence, guidance, peace, love, etc (the ~99 most beautiful names of God mentioned in the Qur’an). By cultivating these attributes in our own personalities, we can bring ourselves closer to God. Thus, according to Dr. Lang, we are placed here on earth to grow in our moral dimension. We are not finished products yet, but are rather work-in-progress creatures. In that sense, we can more appropriately be called human-becomings rather than human-beings. Once developed, this moral dimension will be the necessary common ground between God and us, for an eternal relationship of love and friendship. The final product of this process would be the best of the creatures – a friend and vicegerent of God in all universes.

So again, why is it necessary to put us here in the environment of suffering? Dr. Lang points out the three necessary ingredients to the recipe of morality: Intellect, choice and suffering. In other words, the human suffering on this earth is part of the original Divine plan. (on a side note: contrast this approach to the Sufism’s reply to the same question. For example, if you asked Prof. Nasr: why is there evil in this world? His reply would be: as privation of good and distance from God. In other words, God could not create a world, distant from Himself, and yet make it perfect. Clearly that makes evil, and resultant suffering, an imperfection and byproduct of the very process of creation, and certainly not a conscious and intentional Divine plan for some higher purpose. For further detail, see my critique of that approach). Only in the presence of these three necessary ingredients, we have a chance of moral growth. That makes suffering, at least in theory, an opportunity rather than a nuisance. The quantity of suffering one is subjected to, however, depends upon many different factors, not all of which we can understand completely. But like a good teacher, who wants the student to learn and grow, always gives assignments, just above the current caliber of the student – enough to challenge but not too much to frustrate – the extremely difficult lives of the chosen messengers and prophets of God, like Muhammad, Jesus, Abraham, Job, Joseph, etc, makes perfect sense.

Technically speaking, the evil in this world can be divided into two categories: Natural evil and Human evil. Disease, earthquake and tsunami, for example, fall in the first category while murder, rape and theft, in the second. Both result in human suffering. Most thinkers agree that this environment of suffering does bring out, what Prof. Patrick Grim calls, ‘higher order good’ and proffers the example of ‘courage’ that can only exist in an environment of fear. But Prof. Grim does not think that such good things, no matter how high on the scale of morality, can justify human suffering. Besides other examples, Prof. Grim brings up one of the most acclaimed and passionately written piece of literature, i.e. The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. Like Ivan (one of the main characters of this novel), Prof. Grim rejects this world that God has created because of it’s suffering, and thinks it’s not worth it. He actually goes further and says that a moral God won’t do it – won’t make a child suffer for you and me to learn morality.

So, once again the question becomes, as we have often heard: Is this the best of the worlds that God could create? As we discussed in our meeting, this question, stated like this, is incomplete and hides vital detail. We know from our experience that things are not good or bad in an absolute sense but are always relative to a purpose. We discussed the example that a van might be best road transport vehicle, if the purpose is to carry a large family long distance, but the same van might not be the best choice if the purpose is to race on a racetrack. On the other hand, Corvette might be the best vehicle on racetrack, but is not so good a choice for the purposes of a large family transport. The point being that the purpose determines the worth. With this understanding, the above question can be restated as: is this the best of the worlds God could create to its purpose? But what is that purpose? Most people who think that this world is not the best of the worlds that all-loving all-powerful God could create, mistakenly presume that the purpose of this world is for us to be comfortable and have fun. That is confusing earth with heaven – we’re not there yet. But if we understand the purpose of this world to be a learning academy – a place where we can grow, morally and intellectually – then the verdict might be different. For one thing we humans cannot do in this world is to not-learn – we necessarily learn from our experiences, and the choices we make, make this learning positive or negative.

Coming back to Prof. Grim’s question: is the ‘higher good’ that comes out of suffering, worth it? Undoubtedly, it’s an extremely serious and far-reaching question, but before we venture on to answer that question, I think, we should carefully consider two points. One, on a smaller scale, we make similar decisions routinely, and choose temporary suffering for some higher good in the future. For example, we knowingly expose our children to the rigor and hardship of school and college in consideration of their future success and benefit, even though we have a choice not to. Granted that the rigors of four year college is nothing compared to the suffering of this world, but then again, the resulting benefits are also disproportional – a four year college degree to be used for the next forty five years of working life, compared to eternal bliss and friendship with the creator of the heavens and earth. Secondly, many thinkers agree that there are higher realities than what meets the eye in this world. Plato’s ‘shadows in the cave’ and Qur’an’s higher reality of the afterlife (50:22) can be points to be considered. In that higher reality, our earthly existence would seem only part of a day, says the Qur’an (79:46). The suffering of this earthly life feels very much real and heart-wrenching when we’re going through it, but so do our dreams. Who is to say that the death from this life won’t be like waking up into a higher reality from a dream that felt very real?

Paradox of veiling in Islam

Some years ago, when I came across this article from Karen Armstrong, I could not but agree with her thesis. Since then, I see more and more truth in it.

On the surface, what looks like a resurgence and revival movement within Islam in the recent decades, up-close is really a search for self-identity. In the face of increasing social pressures – partly because of the neocolonialism of the West – Muslim masses, including the highly educated class, search for ideological symbols – veil is only one of them.

If you disagree, here’s the litmus test: observe the way of life of these veiled women closely. You’ll find that most do not feel much compunction missing Morning Prayer but would be adamant about covering each hair on thier head. Men, with little scruple, lie cheat and beat their wives but would be resolute on wearing long beard etc. Unless someone has his priorities completely twisted, this is neither Islamic resurgence nor revival.

Read Armstrong’s article:


…where the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it.