From (Jeremiah McAuliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Geisler-Saleeb Anti-Islam Book, Part 1 (3/3)
Date: 1996/8/31
Message-Id: <50b9dr$>

He writes that in Islam God is not essentially just or loving. Odd.
Two of God's names in the Qur'an are "The Just" (Al-Adl) and "The
Loving" (Al-Wudud). Geisler's ignorance? Or his dishonesty? (One must
wonder here if Geisler ever read the Old Testament with its portrayal
of God as angry and vengeful. Hardly the saccharine portrayal of God
pushed by some Christians today: God as "my big buddy".)

Why does he make this false claim regarding Muslim belief? Because of
(6:12) "He hath inscribed for Himself Mercy". Geisler makes a big
deal of God's putting restrictions upon Himself. A pointless deal,
but a big one just the same. He attempts to produce a moral
relativity in our understanding of God because of this: "had he
chosen to be otherwise he would not be merciful". Here, Geisler is
making human concepts the measure of God's mercy and justice-- when
it is God Himself who defines mercy and justice for us. Even in
Christian theology this is a blasphemy. Great from a dean of a
seminary. In addition, it would really get him in trouble given his
belief in the theology of Jesus' painful death as a blood sacrifice
for the sins of others. Whose concepts of justice and mercy is that
all about? The death of an innocent for the guilty?

Geisler continues his argument based upon the false premise that
Islam states that "God is Will". Interestingly, he switches from
attributing to us that God's essence is unknowable, to our supposedly
saying that God does not have an essence at all: "For if God is Will,
without any real essence..." Well, what is one supposed to say to a
move like that? Not much. Clearly, saying that the Godhead is
unknowable (i.e. "in its essence") is not the same that there is
nothing there at all. Geisler makes these types of leaps quite
frequently, thus again meriting a grade of "F".

He continues to judge God by a human set of standards: "...he does
not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because
he does them. In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and
wrong." (Why doesn't Geisler capitalize personal pronouns for God?
Real strange for an Evangelical.) Y'see, it is *Geisler* who is
deciding the definition for "right", not God. How he gets to the idea
that a Muslim conception of God is that God is arbitrary in morality
(man! what a blasphemous statement) is beyond me. I guess it is
because in Islam it is indeed God who defines right and wrong-- not
humanity-which is indeed the proper moral hierarchy for any believer,
regardless of tradition. Funny, its the same in Christianity. Isn't
it? Didn't Jesus say that before we said an eye for an eye, but now
he teaches us that God is saying do good to those who persecute you?
That is morality coming from God-a morality that is counter-intuitive
to what humans may think is right or wrong. Geisler violates his own

He goes on with his blasphemy (even by Christian standards). He
quotes the Qur'an "Had it been Our Will, We could have sent a warner
to every centre of Population" (25:51) and claims this "smacks of
arbitrariness". That is, that God warns some, but not others, thus
implying that those not warned are in trouble with God. But,
ignorantly (or is it disingenuously?) fails to mention passages such
as "Nor do we punish a nation until We have sent forth an apostle to
forewarn them." and "Never have We destroyed a nation whom We did not
warn and admonish beforehand. We are never unjust". Frankly, Geisler,
even at this early point in his "refutation" of Islam is making me
sick-- as he should any person with a modicum of intellectual
integrity... which he is quite obviously lacking, imho.

(What does the Qur'an say about those who tell lies about God?)

Ok, one little bit more for now. He calls us agnostics. But actually,
he doesn't even seem to know what the word means. We are still only
on page 137.

Geisler bases this subsection on the twisted idea that in Islam "God
had no essence"-- the twisting of the idea (even as discussed in
Christian theology) of the Godhead-- and writes: "...the Islamic view
of God involves a form of agnosticism... the heart of Islam is not to
*know* God but to obey him. It is not to *meditate* on his essence,
but to *submit* to his will." Quoting someone named Phander he
continues: "...they find themselves absolutely unable to know God...
Thus Islam leads to Agnosticism." Do we find ourselves "absolutely
unable to know God"? First I heard of it. But even then, note how he
has twisted the meaning of agnosticism. Agnosticism is the state of
not knowing whether or not God exists. At the very least, Muslims
know that God exists because of the miracle of the Qur'an. See the
(rather crass) manipulation? And of course, from the Qur'an, our
agnosticism evaporates in view of God's signs in creation, in history
and in ourselves which we are directed to meditate upon.

Whew! I'm tired, so that does it for now even though this does not
complete our surface analysis of this first section, but this is
already so very long for usenet. So, insha Allah, keep your eyes open
for Part II of "Geisler-Saleeb Anti-Islam Book"

Allahu akbar!
Allahu akbar!
Allahu akbar!

There is no god but God and Muhammad is indeed a messenger from

Jeremiah McAuliffe/
Visit Dr. Jihad's! Page 'O Heavy Issues
WOW! Major Upgrade Comin' Soon!

Abdul's response.
Overview on the debate between Jeremiah and Abdul
Answering Islam Home Page