How do Muslims respond to C.S. Lewis's "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument?

Question

Christian author and apologist C.S. Lewis, is famous, among other things, for posing the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic argument, in favor of the divinity of Christ.

The cliff-notes version is:

Jesus said he was God (see here for a summary of verses to this effect). This leaves three logical possibilities:

1. Jesus was a lunatic, on par with someone who believes they are a slice of cheddar cheese.
2. Jesus was a liar, knowing full well he was not God, but trying to convince people that he was.
3. Jesus really was who he said he was, and he was God.

Given that Islam holds both Jewish and Christian religious texts in high esteem, and Islam believes Jesus was a prophet of Allah, how does Islam reconcile its concept of Jesus with these three possibilities? Would Allah send a prophet who was a pathological liar, or a lunatic?

I see also a fourth logical possibility, and that is that the scripture record is wildly inaccurate, and Jesus never actually claimed to be God. This possibility, of course, raises other issues, beyond the scope of this particular question.

Answer 1

I think you just answered your own question:

I see also a fourth logical possibility, and that is that the scripture record is wildly inaccurate, and Jesus never actually claimed to be God.

This is exactly the Islamic view on this issue. While Islam does hold the holy scriptures of Christianity and Judaism in high regard, it also holds the view that these texts were corrupted by human meddling. The Christian version of the crucifixion is believed by Muslims to be a corrupted version of the true story.

See this answer for further insight on how Islam views Jesus Christ.

Answer 2

Muslims do not consider Jesus as a lord, lunatic or liar - any of these statements would lead to denial of Jesus as a Messiah and True Messenger of God. I am shocked to hear this expounded by a atheist albeit later a Christian apologetic. The fourth possibility is commonly held by Muslims that the scripture (Bible) and let me specifically add interpretation is inaccurate, and Jesus never actually claimed to be God. Therefore one needs to refer to issues that arise therein.

Regarding Jesus and Muslims: Muslim believe Jesus is the Messiah, a Messenger and a Spirit from God. Muslims love him and hold great respect for him and his mother Mary. Muslims believe Jesus did not act nor claim to be God or his Son. He had miraculous birth and difficult life despite the power God had vested in him e.g. miracles which he never abused and acted righteously. A great deal can be learnt from his life. Any text which refers to Muslim understanding of Jesus is relevant to this question e.g. Quranic or Prophetic traditions etc. Therefore, the above Quranic verse is relevant. It refers to a conversation between God and Jesus (2 separate entities) which of course would not be in the New Testament...a text not revealed or ratified by Jesus or revealed to Muhammad.

@Filmzy suggestion that no Christian scripture claims Jesus said 'Take me and my mother as Gods" or anything of the sort - only suggest that he is stating direct omission in one source leads to refutation of another and the derived meaning and interpretation.

Let's state personal beliefs from both sides, not what one reflects on the other. Muslims believe Qur'an is God's Word revealed to Muhammad. Christians believe The New Testament is book written by Gospel authors inspired by life of Jesus.

Now we have cleared the 'room' of believer's who project their own understanding of other peoples belief. Fact: The general message of Christian theologians is that the scriptures support Jesus is God and his mother at least in certain denominations e.g.Roman Catholicism is venerated. Jesus is part of the Trinity. Fact: Muslims believe God is Only One, no Trinity.

Fact: Jesus said he was the Son of Man numerous times in the New Testament. Self proclamation of divinity is surprisingly scarce from Jesus' Opinion: the most fundamental belief in Christianity Jesus saying he is Son of God is not central to the founders message. Son of Man could refer to Jesus humanity, messianic quality or possible reference son of first man (Adam). Fact: Qur'an refer to Jesus as Son of Mary and Messiah and refer to the similarity of creation of Adam to Jesus being born without one or two parents in the former (3:59) Fact: Jesus said 'Why hast though forsaken me' Matthew 27:46 Opinion: Messengers and prophets have suffered a great deal and rebuke e.g. Abraham when he was thrown in the fire. I cannot imagine a messenger, let alone a god to say this Before someone says Abraham trial is not as bad as Jesus' in Islam...Fact: Muslims believe in the ascension of Jesus, not the crucifixion.

References: studied Christianity by Christians and Islam by Christians and Muslims

Answer 3

Their response is the “last possibility that you have brought out “that the scripture record is wildly inaccurate, and Jesus never actually claimed to be God”. Without this assertion it is like self denial for them.

The speck of doubt on Bible and the idea that Bible is changed, emanates from our brethren in arms who are trying to portray that they are worshipping God of Abraham and yet wants to remain separate from us. Their identity as a separate religion is possible and could be maintained only by casting aspiration on the word of God. Islam cannot change its views on the Bible without admitting that Koran is erroneous. Without changing its views on Divinity of Jesus, it cannot admit that Koran is without error,. Islam cannot cease to oppose the important doctrines of Christianity without ceasing to call themselves Muslims.

Answer 4

Firstly, as you aptly pointed out, it's possible that the scriptures incorrectly recorded Jesus' claims about his own status as the Son of God. Ignoring error, let's assume that Jesus really did claim to be the Son of God. We will assume he is neither a liar nor a lunatic. Lewis posits that the only remaining possibility is that he must be the Son of God. But is it not possible that he is simply incorrect? Jesus may even have been justified (or rational) in assuming he is the Son of God given the parameters available to him when forming such a judgement. Would one consider Newton to be a lunatic for his belief in the existence of aether?

Neither argument is proof that Jesus is definitively not the Son of God. But shows that Lewis's argument is rather weaker than it appears on the surface.

Answer 5

This is view of Islam:

وَإِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلْتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَٰهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلَا أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلَّامُ الْغُيُوبِ ﴿المائدة: ١١٦﴾

And when Allah said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as Gods, apart from Allah"?' He said, 'To Thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen

Answer 6

Christianity was an underground minority movement until the Roman State embraced it. The Roman State habitually raised its emperors to divine status, in order that the public viewed the state & its laws with suitable awe & majesty.

Rousseau in his Social Contract says:

"This is what has, in all ages, compelled the fathers of nations to have recourse to divine intervention and credit the gods with their own wisdom, in order that the peoples, submitting to the laws of the State as to those of nature, and recognising the same power in the formation of the city as in that of man, might obey freely, and bear with docility the yoke of the public happiness."

Simone Weil, a moral philosopher & mystic, believed that it was the tragedy of Christianity to have compromised with Roman State power, which she called the 'great beast'. She meant it corrupted its essential spirit.

If Christ said he was God (I haven't read the Bible closely), this may simply have been no different from Al-Hallaj saying 'ana al-haq' (I am the truth), one of the 99 names of Allah. Thus identifying himself with the divinity. He was executed, raising a fierce debate within Islam about the mystical path; only being rehabilitated several generations later.

According to Lord Jesus Christ, page 204 referenced on wikipedias article on Early Christianity, "Early Christians saw Jesus as the uniquely significant agent of the one God" (this doesn't sound disimilar to the relation between Muhammed & Allah); by the first Nicaea Council "he was identified as God in the fullest sense, being 'of the same substance, essence or being'."

I suggest it was the political class in Rome that actually installed Christ as God, and Mary as the Mother of God in a pale imitation of their polythiest past.