IS THE BIBLE THE WORD OF GOD?

So, the issue here is, who wrote the Bible? And unless the ‘maker’ can be established then the Bible cannot be accepted as evidence. And if the Bible cannot be accepted as evidence then you cannot use it to argue your case. And if the Bible cannot be used to argue your case how do you debate what the Bible says? You need other non-Biblical evidence to argue your case since the Bible is not relevant to this debate.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It has certainly been a most interesting week. I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers from church leaders to Christian scholars to those with a PhD in theology. One person very senior in the church even indicated that he would like to debate me regarding my views on the Bible. I would like that but let me come to that later.

First I want to talk about Christian scholars or those with a PhD in theology. These are what Malays or Muslims would call ulama’ (ulamak). Ulama’ basically means an expert or someone with ‘authority’ (meaning knowledge on the subject matter) although when Malays use that term they are specifically referring to experts or someone with authority involving Islam.

Malaysia has an ulama’ association. I do not quite know what the credentials are for acceptance as a member of this association and whether anyone can join or whether the criteria for membership is very strict. Nevertheless, once you are classified as an ulama’ then whatever you say becomes a sort of decree and no one would question you any further.

Therefore your status as an ulama’ is very important if you want to make any ruling on Islam because you can literally get away with murder. For example, if the ulama’ consider what I write as blasphemy and an affront to Islam they can decree that I must be put to death (and even offer a RM100 reward for those who kill me) and it would be halal (kosher) for any Muslim to kill me. That person who kills me will go to heaven (or so they believe).

Such is the power of the ulama’.

If the ulama’ decree that the Christians or the Malay language Bible must not use Allah then the Christians and the Malay language Bible must not use Allah. Not even the Agong, the Sultan, the Prime Minister, or the Menteri Besar, dare dispute this because the ulama’ are above all these people.

Can you now understand why the Agong, the Sultan, the Prime Minister and the Menteri Besar dare not put their foot down and rein in the ulama’ but would rather pass the buck to the courts and let the judges grapple with the problem? How can the Agong, the Sultan, the Prime Minister or the Menteri Besar make any religious ruling or decree that might contradict the opinions of the ulama’? That is absolutely not acceptable.

I am one who defies convention. I do not really care what the ulama’ (or muftis, imams, priests, religious scholars, those with a PhD, etc.) think and would contradict them if I feel they are wrong. That is, after all, what education and knowledge is all about. You are supposed to research and ponder and come to your own conclusion, not blindly follow the opinions of others just because they have a piece of paper with a PhD against their name that says they are qualified and you are not.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once very mischievously said that an ulama’ is merely an expert in a certain field or subject. The best jewel thief in the world would be an ulama’ in his field. I suppose those who were already around in the 1950s would regard Rose Chan as an ulama’ in her field. (For those in the ‘Gen Y’ group go ask your grandfather who Rose Chan was).

If I have a PhD to my name and I give my opposing opinion regarding a certain matter then the other people also with a PhD would humbly and respectfully disagree with my views. However, since I do not have a PhD to my name, then my opinions mean fuck all and those with a PhD in theology or a PhD in Islamic studies, Islamic history, Islamic jurisprudence, etc., would just tell me to shut the fuck up because I am not ‘authorised’ to give an opinion.

Soon after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Wahhabi Muslims, supported by the army of the Saud tribe, swept across the Arabian Peninsula and killed every living thing that did not accept the Salafi doctrine. They did not just kill non-Salafi Muslims but even killed the goats, sheep, camels, chickens, dogs, cats, etc., as well. Nothing was to be left alive.

This was a ruling by the ulama’ and since the ulama’ decreed this then no one must dispute this. I am not an ulama’ but I disagree with this act. Why must people be killed just because they may be Muslims but they are not Salafi Muslims? Does this mean the ulama’ are right just because they happen to have been given the status of an ulama’ and we do not even know who the hell gave them that status?

If what the ulama’ decree is 100% correct, and if we must never dispute what the ulama’ say, then we should support the killing of all non-Salafi Muslims in the Middle East. And, today, they are massacring non-Salafi Muslims in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and so on.

And the killings are going to get worse as many countries in the Middle East and North Africa erupt into civil war. But this is what the ulama’ have decreed so why is the United States so hot and bothered about it and why has President Obama threatened air strikes against what he calls ‘rebels’ and ‘terrorists’?

These killers are not rebels and terrorists. They are mujahideens. They are doing God’s work. They are just following the orders of the ulama’. They should be praised and given a medal for cleansing the Middle East and North Africa of deviants. And I, too, should be supporting this current ethnic cleansing of deviant Muslims since this is being done at the orders of the ulama’.

So, just because you have a PhD to your name that does not mean your views are correct. And just because you have a PhD to your name that does not mean I have to agree with you. And just because I do not have a PhD to my name that does not mean I am not entitled to my views or that my views are wrong.

It just means you have your views and I have my views and there is no right and wrong because right and wrong depends on your belief system.

Killing Jews is right to some ulama’ but wrong as far as I am concerned. Kidnapping Muslim girls who insist on going to school is right to some ulama’ but wrong as far as I am concerned. And forcing 16-year old girls into marriage is right to some ulama’ but wrong as far as I am concerned.

You just need to be a decent person to differentiate between right and wrong. You do not need to be a scholar, ulama’ or have a PhD to your name to differentiate between right and wrong.

Okay, so some Christian scholars, priests, church leaders, those with a PhD in theology, etc., want to debate with me regarding my views on the Bible. They feel I am wrong and they would like to prove me wrong in this debate. That is well and fine as far as I am concerned. So let us start that debate.

The title of my debate is: Is the Bible the word of God?

I say no, the Bible is not the word of God. And I say it is not the word of God because no one has yet been able to prove that it is. I am not making any claim. Those who defend the Bible are the ones making that claim. Hence the onus is on them to prove that the Bible is the word of God and not for me to prove that it is not. I am just saying that I cannot accept it as the word of God until the evidence that it is can be adduced.

So it is no use quoting verses from the Bible to make your case. This debate is not about the verses of the Bible. This debate is about the authenticity of the Bible. We must first establish the status of the Bible before we dabble into the verses of the Bible and decide which part of the Bible confirms this, that or the other.

Let me use this example. You go to court and make a claim. The judge then asks you to prove your claim. You then take out a document and table that as the evidence to support your claim.

The judge then asks you where this document came from. In short, who is the maker of this document? You then name the maker of the document. So you are not the maker of the document. Someone else is.

Since you are not the maker of the document but someone else is the judge cannot accept the document. This is still merely hearsay. The maker of the document would have to come to court to testify as to whether he or she is the maker of this document. Only then can the document be accepted as evidence.

This happened about 30 years ago soon after Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister. Someone was charged for fraud and a letter purportedly signed by Dr Mahathir was tabled in court. The court would not accept the letter until Dr Mahathir was summoned to court to testify as to whether he did or did not sign the letter.

Dr Mahathir testified that he did not sign the letter. Hence the letter was a fraud and this evidence was rejected.

So, the issue here is, who wrote the Bible? And unless the ‘maker’ can be established then the Bible cannot be accepted as evidence. And if the Bible cannot be accepted as evidence then you cannot use it to argue your case. And if the Bible cannot be used to argue your case how do you debate what the Bible says? You need other non-Biblical evidence to argue your case since the Bible is not relevant to this debate.

So, is the Bible the word of God? Give me your evidence. And the Bible cannot be used as that evidence because we are yet to establish the authenticity of the Bible.

Any church leaders, Christian scholars, ulama’, theologians with a PhD, etc., who would like to take on this debate? The ball is now in your court.