Abu Zakariya’s book Jesus: Man Messenger Messiah is an ambitious Islam polemic book that seeks to engage and debate with Christians. The purpose of this book is to convince Christians of why Nicene Christianity is wrong and to lay out why Islam is the correct religion for Christians. It is important to state that this book is a polemic against elements of Nicene Christianity, that Zakariya disagrees with. I must confess that my viewpoint will be altered by the fact that I am liberal-Christian. That means I am going to have a certain bias in my hermeneutical approach to reading this book. I am going to attempt to give this a fair review but you have to understand that everyone has a bias, including myself. Read other reviews alongside this one for a fair assessment.
The first chapters of the book lay out a comparison between the conception of God in Christianity versus the conception of God in Islam. Zakariya lays out how the conceptualisation of God in Christianity has been corrupted by historical developments. Zakariya argues that Christianity as a religion has developed over centuries with multiple beliefs refined by church councils rather than being original to Christianity. He argues the trinity is the worst concept in Christianity as being incoherent and flawed. Zakariya argues that Christianity had multiple versions of belief. The Ebionites, Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah but fully human. The Marcionites on the other hand represent a version of Gnosticism believing Jesus is divine (Zakariya doesn’t mention much about other forms of Gnostic beliefs such as Valentinianism). Then Zakriya mentions Subordinationism in Jesus being subordinate to the Father which was prevalent in early Christianity. Zakariya lays out how Trinitarianism developed and how it conflicts with belief in a God. The book outlines that Jesus taught pure monotheism and did not believe in trinitarianism and how trinitarianism was influenced by paganism.
Chapter Two contrasts Chapter One in how God is laid out in Islam. Jesus is laid out in Islam as being the Messiah, how beliefs should be developed through divine revelation, reason and Islam, with emphasis on the Kalam cosmological argument, the argument for God’s existence that William Lane Craig likes. There is also how Islam eliminated idolatry in Arabia and the benefits of the Qur’an on humanity. Chapter Three lays out the lives of the prophets in the Qur’an and the Bible. The Qur’an is contrasted with the Bible with its positive views of the prophets. In contrast, the Bible is looked at as having negative views of the prophets. Chapter Four looks at atonement and the problems with the Christian view of atonement, which is viewed as barbaric compared with the Islamic view of forgiveness from Allah/God being a free gift. Chapter Five argues about the historic nature of the crucifixion which is examined and the Islamic view of the crucifixion is outlined.
Chapter Six outlines the preservation of the Qur’an. This includes looking at the problems of different translations of the Bible and contrasting this with the immaculate preservation of the Qur’an, being perfectly preserved by Allah/God. In this regard, the Qur’an is superior to the Bible. There is also a look at how the hadith tradition is superior in its transmission of oral tradition and how it is transmitted from person to person. Chapter Seven looks at how Paul invented Christianity in that Jesus practised Judaism and was Jewish in his interpretation of the law and how he caused two branches of Christianity to emerge, with the argument that Jesus was not sent to the whole world but only for the Jews.
Chapter Eight outlines how Jesus prophesied someone after himself.
This book is part of what I would argue is Christian-Islamic dialectic discourse. There is a subsection of dialectic discourse between Christian and Islamic apologetics online. This book falls into the category of a’ priori reasoning, with the majority of the book using a’ priori argument in discoursing with Christianity. This is to be expected as much of the religious discourse between Christianity and Islam are questions of faith and so a’ priori reasoning is better suited for the discussion.
What does Abu Zakariya get right? Well, I am pleased to say that for someone who is not an expert of early Christian history, Abu Zakariya shows a great deal of knowledge of early Christian doctrine. This is a strong point of the book as Evangelical Protestants who have no awareness of how Christianity developed would find it difficult to respond to Zakariya’s claims. Jesus: Man Messenger Messiah is good at outlining the development of Christian doctrine over some time and does a good job at capturing the element of how tradition developed in refining Christian doctrine. The only disagreement with Zakariya is the claims that trinity developed from pagan influence, in which I would think the evidence is that trinitarianism was more of a philosophical development from Greco-Roman philosophy than paganism per se.
Another thing that Abu Zakariya does well is outlining how Paul had a profound influence on Christianity in how it developed and became a religion of the Gentiles. I think Zakariya is spot on in his analysis of Paul in that Paul developed Christianity from a sect of Judaism into the religion of Gentiles. I think there is a major difference between Pauline Christianity and the Christianity of the Gospels, one which is ignored by Christians. I would say that generally Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Anglicanism are better at their representation of the Gospels; whilst Protestantism is far more Pauline in its orientation. That said, the Gospels originated after Paul’s writings and it is fair to say that the writing of the Gospels was influenced by the Q source. Zakariya also does a good job looking at the development of the New Testament and accurately looks at the dating of various sources of the gospel manuscripts. I think he does a fair assessment criticising source material of the New Testament in that the New Testament manuscripts are centuries from the source.
There are however problems with the book. For starters, the book has highly inconsistent referencing criteria and wider research used. In the section on early Christianity, there was a significant amount of referencing used but this weakens throughout the book and it seems that Zakariya only references things on Christianity discourse. It would have been lovely to see Zakariya use a vast array of Islamic scholarship that has developed over 1400 years. Instead, it seems that there is a lack of referencing in the later stages of the book, with the main focus on a’ priori theological dialectic discourse. I always mark a book down for insufficient referencing and unfortunately, this book falls in that category.
I also think that at times this book resorts to question-begging which is part of the nature of religious debate. Circular reasoning is a likely outcome of religious dialectic debate. I also think that there is a problem with the way he lays out the difference between the Qur’an and the New Testament in that on page 56 there is the claim that the Sunnah was part of the Qur’an interpretation. I don’t think Zakariya is clear enough that the earliest Hadith tradition, Sahih Al’ Bukhari is over 150 years after the Prophet’s death. Zakariya spends a lot of time criticising the development of Christianity and does not acknowledge this fact. Likewise, the book is not clear on the vast array of Qur’an interpretations. The American scholar Samuel Ross argues there are 2700 Qur’an tafsir or interpretations. I also think his criticism of progressive revelation is not entirely fair as I think one of the strengths of Christianity, coming from a liberal-Christian perspective is that it has developed from an earlier period that holds vastly different views on the nature of God. John Burton’s The Sources of Islamic Law outlines progressive theology in Naksh or abrogation.
Overall, the book is an interesting book from the Islamic view of Christianity. This is certainly a useful part of the dialectic debate between Christianity and Islam. I would certainly think it is a useful book for Muslims who engage in dialectic discussion with Christians. Whilst it is not a highly scholarly book, it is easy to read and one that engages in fair and honest criticism.