Non-Muslim Residents of an Islamic State
Posted: February 23, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Islam 2 Comments »
People who live under the protection of an Islamic government enjoy special privileges. They are referred to as “the Protested People” (ahl al-dhimmah or dhimmis), meaning that Allah, His Messenger (pbuh), and the community of Muslims have made a covenant with them that they may live in safety and security under the Islamic government.
In modern terminology, dhimmis are “citizens” of the Islamic state. From the earliest period of Islam to the present day, Muslims are in unanimous agreement that they enjoy the same rights and carry the same responsibilities as Muslims themselves, while being free to practise their own faiths.
The Prophet (pbuh) emphasised the duties of Muslims towards dhimmis, threatening anyone who violates them with the wrath and punishment of Allah. He said:
He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.
Whoever hurts a dhimmi, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection.
On the Day of Resurrection I shall dispute with anyone who oppresses a person from among the People of the Covenant, or infringes on his right, or puts a responsibility on him which is beyond his strength, or takes something from him against his will.
The successors of the Prophet, the caliphs, safeguarded these rights and sanctities of non-Muslim citizens, and the jurists of Islam, in spite of the variation of their opinions regarding many other matters, are unanimous in emphasising these rights and sanctities.
Says the Maliki jurist, Shihab al-Din al-Qarrafi:
The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations towards the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (pbuh), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (pbuh), and the religion of Islam.
And the Zahiri jurist, Ibn Hazm, says:
If one is a dhimmi, and the enemy comes with his forces to take him, it is our obligation to fight the enemy with soldiers and weapons and to give our lives for him, thus honouring the guarantee of Allah and His Messenger. To hand him over to the enemy would mean to dishonour this guarantee.
♦
Excerpt from The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi pp 312-314.
Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has published more than 120 books, including The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam and Islam: The Future Civilization. He has also received eight international prizes for his contributions to Islamic scholarship, and is considered one of the most influential Muslim scholars living today.
Oxford Debate: Can the West Live with Islam?
Posted: February 22, 2012 Filed under: Debates, Islam, Videos Leave a comment »Sir Jonathan Phillips of Keble College, Oxford, chairs a debate between Professor Nigel Biggar, Theology Faculty, University of Oxford, and Islamic Studies lecturer, Tim Winter, University of Cambridge; on the topic : Can the West Live with Islam?
click here: can-west-live-islam-video
In Praise of Christians (at least some of them)
Posted: February 21, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam 10 Comments »
Fr Michael Fuller
In my working life I have occasion to work with the local Christian Anglican clergy. One of them, the Rev Michael Fuller of St George’s Church in Kensington, London, has just got back from a pastoral visit to Cornwall. Michael knows I am a Muslim and we occasionally speak about our respective faiths. Last Friday in Cornwall he met some Muslims who have to travel many miles to pray Jummah on Fridays (all the way to Bristol I think). Michael had the bright idea of contacting the local Church of England priest and asking if these Muslims could have their prayers in the local church – thus saving them many miles of travel each Friday. The priest agreed asking only that the Muslims recognise that it was a Christian place of worship – which they gladly did.
Fr Michael has shown other acts of consideration and kindness to Muslims which I need not go into here. His good works go unreported in the media. As Muslims we hear so often from the bigots and aggressive missionaries who plague our communities and MDI is right to respond to these attacks with robust arguments concerning the truth about Islam. But let us remember that there are Christian priests out there who quietly and lovingly communicate something of the original gospel message of Jesus.
This is not entirely unexpected as the Quran speaks of such people:
Thou wilt surely find that, of all people, the most hostile to those who believe [in this divine writ] are the Jews as well as those who are bent on ascribing divinity to aught beside God; and thou wilt surely find that, of all people, they who say, “Behold, we are Christians,” come closest to feeling affection for those who believe [in this divine writ]: this is so because there are priests and monks among them, and because these are not given to arrogance.
(5:82) Muhammad Asad translation
Jonathan Brown on Being Inspired by Prophet Muhammad
Posted: February 18, 2012 Filed under: Islam, Islamophobia 3 Comments »Interview with Jonathan Brown, Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies and Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.
Can we start with the story of your conversion?
I was raised Anglican, the Church of England in America, but my family wasn’t very religious. My family wasn’t very religious, so I wasn’t really brought up as a Christian. I believed in God; I have always believed in God. When I was in college, during my first year at Georgetown, I took a class in Islam and the teacher was a Muslim woman. I was very interested in what she was telling me. I realized that the things she was telling me were things that I had believed my whole life; the nature of God, the idea of reason, the idea that reason and religion are supposed to be compatible, religion should enhance your life, not make it difficult and not make you suffer. At the end of the semester I really felt like a Muslim; that summer, the summer of 1997, I spent reading a lot of books on Islam and traveling throughout Europe and Morocco; when I came back to school at the beginning of my sophomore year of college I became Muslim.
Did you have any prior contact with any Muslims before?
No, I don’t think I had really met a Muslim before I took a class on Islam.
We all know your books on Prophet Muhammad and I have just learned that you are working on a new book.
Yes, there is a series of books from Oxford University Press called “Very Short Introductions”; they have them on everything; “Very Short Introduction to the European Union”, etc. I am doing the one on the Prophet. I have finished the book. They will publish it as a book on its own and then as part of the series. Right now it is delayed, because they sent it to the Pakistan office of the Press, to see if it is offensive to Muslims. I wanted to tell them “I am a Muslim and everything in it is from Muslims. There is nothing in it that is offensive to Muslims.” I talk about some of the Western historians and how they talk about the prophet, but this is just a discussion. All the things on the life of the prophet are from the Seerah and the hadith.
Why are they still worried?
Because books that are perceived to be offensive to the Prophet usually cause problems. But for a publisher these kinds of problems mean that people buy the book more. I don’t know what they are concerned about.
What is the thing that influenced you the most about Prophet Muhammad?
Probably, that he was the best person in every situation. To me this is very inspirational. A lot of times the religious role models we have in America are always a certain way – for example Jesus is always kind and forgiving. But sometimes you can’t be forgiving. You shouldn’t be; sometimes you have to soft and sweet and sometimes you have to be direct and harsh; sometimes you have to be patient and at other times you have to act quickly. There isn’t always one rule that you can apply to your life that will tell you how to act. You have to be able to read the situation and act in the best way. The Prophet knew how to do that; that is inspirational. I think that is the most important thing.
Do you think that Muslims today can apply his teachings to their daily lives?
Definitely. I think that Muslims need to think about how he was both idealistic and effective. He had principles which he lived by, but he also knew how to market himself and the way to speak to a certain person to convince them; he knew how to speak to a person to make them his ally. He wasn’t always just severe and strict and austere. He knew how to tailor his message to each person; not to change the message, but to shape it to the person, that is, not changing the content, but the form. This is very useful. I think when Muslims feel they are religious they tend to make announcements about what is haram. To really follow the example of the Prophet is to always think about what is right. That is really useful.
To have that balance…
Yes, to be a whole person, to be a fully-dimensioned person
So why do you think that in Europe and the US Prophet Muhammad has become such a target for some people?
First of all it is ignorance. People don’t know anything about Islam or the Prophet. They hear that Muslims are terrorists and that Islam is a violent religion, so the Prophet must be the source or symbol of this. That is the biggest reason. A lot of it is political. The reason why there is conflict between Muslims and Western countries is because Western countries are invading or occupying Muslims countries. That causes political problems. Westerners depict Muslims as violent because the Muslims react against the invasions. There is a long history of conflict between Western countries and Muslim countries, but the kind of portrayal of the Prophet today, which such hatred and rancor, can only be explained as a product of political conflict.
You mention about scholars who write about Prophet Muhammad; if we assume that generations have grown up reading such comments about Prophet Muhammad is this situation then something normal, natural?
Yes, I think it is. If you ask a person on the street about Islam, ask them to say a word that comes to mind, is it terrorism, Prophet Muhammad, extremism, swords, violence. Generations and generations of repeating this myth…
What should Muslims do?
Do their best to educate people. People don’t know anything. If you tell the average person things about the Prophet’s life, how he lived in Mecca for 13 years without fighting, without conflict with the Meccans who oppressed him, they would be surprised. I think in daily life, whether it is writing a book or writing on the internet you need to try to increase people’s awareness of the Prophet.
You mentioned the difficulties faced in Europe, which are increasing every day, and the attitude of the media. What is the situation in the United States?
The rights of freedom of religion in the United States are very strong. You are constitutionally protected to practice your religion. It is very easy for Muslims to leave class or work to pray. You are constitutionally allowed to do so. If you want to wear your headscarf and your employer fires you, you can sue them for that. So it is easier because your rights are protected. However, because of the fears of terrorism many times the government will start investigations about Muslims for no real reason, deciding that a Muslim is a threat because they are practicing, or that they are a threat because they don’t agree with foreign policy. Which is, by the way, the right of every American to disagree with foreign policy; many Americans disagree with foreign policy. But when a Muslim does: “this person is a potential radical”. Of course after 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed, which allowed the government much freer rein in prosecuting people on the basis of national security. Wire tapping without permission or a warrant from the justice department, this was all allowed. There is a lot of torture of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
And recently it’s been revealed that Information about Muslim students is being sent to the CIA…
These kinds of things happen a lot. This is a debate in the United States. There are many Americans who object to these policies, who aren’t Muslims, because they are violations of constitutional rights. The government should not be able to tap your phone without getting permission from a judge. You should not be able to take student records. After the Patriot Act, if you go to a library to check out books, the government can come to the library and see what you are reading. The US can send Muslims to other countries to be tortured. Is water boarding torture…many Americans who are not Muslim object to this because they see it as being morally wrong, a violation of constitutional rights. This is a big debate. Muslims are against this, but so too are many Americans.
Do you personally see any problems as a scholar, a Muslim scholar?
Not really, I guess I am not a good example. My name is Jonathon Brown and I don’t look like I’m from a Muslim country. I never face persecution due to my name or appearance. I have never faced a problem about being a Muslim scholar. People are generally interested in hearing what Muslims have to say.
What are you observations about Turkey as a Muslim country?
I like it very much. I understand that it is very difficult for Muslims here. But I love it because you can walk down the street and pray whenever you want to. The food is lovely. I wish I knew Turkish, I want to learn more. Religiously it is a very complicated country. I have a lot of respect for Turkish people. But it is a very complicated country.
What about the lack of unity in the Muslims world?
Yes, there is a great lack of unity. One of the problems is that people are interested in their own benefit and fail to form a unified group. They think that if they disagree with someone on an issue they can’t work with them. “I won’t be with them, I don’t want to be in the same room with them…I don’t want to cooperate with them…” But this is silly because you will never agree with someone a hundred per cent. You should always be looking for a chance to cooperate and to build partnership, not veering away.
Do you think that there should be one or two political powers who could lead these countries? For example, should countries get united under the framework of the Islamic Conference?
That would make sense. I think politically Muslims have shared issues that they care about, as well as life-style issues they care about, and I think they should be able to lobby as one group. For example if one country, like France, says women can’t wear headscarves at university, the Muslim countries should boycott or make a statement. As an American I can’t agree with this, I don’t think any American would agree that someone should not be allowed to practice their religion freely; if you want to wear religious clothing this is your right. I think that is one thing they can do and another thing is to have more of an impact politically in terms of foreign policy; for example if a country wants to invade a Muslim country no Muslim country will support that; they won’t let them use their air space or ground space.
Yes, instead of making commercial or military agreements with them…
By the way it would be better for America. Most Americans now would tell you that invading Iraq was a bad idea and if Muslims countries had made it difficult for America to invade Iraq by refusing cooperation or approval then it would have saved us a lot of problems, billions of dollars and many lives. When someone gives you nasihat and tells you not to do something, it is good for you too.
from Lastprophet.info
MDI Events this week:
Posted: February 18, 2012 Filed under: Dawah, Islam, MDI Leave a comment »Monday 20th February
Islam vs Secularism - which is the rational choice?
Lecture Sussex University by Abdullah al Andalusi
18:00-20:00 Room TBC
♦
Thursday 23rd February
Is Shari’a inhumane?
Lecture Lancaster University by Abdullah al Andalusi
♦
Friday 24th February
Islam and Science
Lecture Kent University by Abdullah al Andalusi
More MDI events the following week – stay tuned for more details…
The Muslim Influence on Philosophy
Posted: February 17, 2012 Filed under: Islam, lectures Leave a comment »Farhan Qureshi and the Muslim Debate Initiative
Posted: February 11, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Debates, MDI Leave a comment »Recently MDI invited Farhan Qureshi to two public debates. Both are viewable on this blog. Here are his reflections on his stay with us in London.
From: Farhan Qureshi
To: Abdullah MDI
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012, 5:28
Subject: Statement for MDI
Here is my statement:
In January 2012 I had the opportunity to engage the entire Muslim Debate Initiative team which was by far a spectacular and spiritual experience for me. MDI showed me nothing but kindness and hospitality and represented their faith and tradition completely in a positive and respectful manner. Being a former Muslim I was absolutely humbled by their character and professionalism throughout my stay in London. I thank them again for their invitation and willingness to engage in debate on controversial issues. This speaks volumes in terms of their genuine faith and dedication.
Farhan Qureshi
How to Read a Book by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Posted: February 11, 2012 Filed under: Cool stuff, Islam, lectures, Poetry 1 Comment »Islam, Gay Rights and The Death Penalty, A Muslim View
Posted: February 10, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam, Militant Secularism, The Bible, The News 5 Comments »
The offending leaflet with content censored by the media
Today’s Guardian newspaper reports:
Three men have been jailed after becoming the first to be convicted of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation for handing out a leaflet calling for gay people to be executed.
Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed gave out the pamphlet, entitled The Death Penalty? which showed an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Islamic texts that said capital punishment was the only way to rid society of homosexuality.
So what is one to make of this news? I have conflicting emotions. On the one hand I dislike any attempt to stir up hatred against any section of the community. Islam is a religion par excellence of community cohesion and social tranquility. But Islam does not recognize the concept of ‘gay people’ as if they were a separate race of humans to the rest of us. Shariah is concerned with our behaviour, our public actions, not with what it done in private away from the public gaze. However, any public manifestation of fornication, homosexuality or adultery, if observed by four reliable witnesses, can in certain circumstances, merit very harsh punishments including the death penalty. According to the Quran, God may choose to forgive all aberrations except for the association of other ‘deities’, other powers and other agents, with Him.
By advocating these harsh punishments Islam is in agreement with Christianity and Judaism, at least as originally conceived. God’s law given to Moses on Mount Sinai required the death penalty for those who committed such acts:
‘If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them’ (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
Jesus, according to the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament, absolutely agreed with this requirement:
‘Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’(Matthew 23:1-3 NIV)
A similar attitude to the Law is found later in the same chapter:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:23-24 NIV)
This is not to say that I agree with the crude way these leaflets were written. Perhaps it was inevitably going to rouse the gay lobby and the law to suppress these views. And the three Muslims have been sent to prison and have had their freedom of speech crushed. I think the sentence handed down by the court was unfair. I have no doubt that the churches, if they say anything at all, will mutter platitudes about the Almighty loving ‘gay people‘, as if this quasi ‘classification’ of humans presented a different set of moral issues than ‘adulterous people’ or ‘fornicating people’.
University of Sussex Isoc: 4 MDI Lectures
Posted: February 9, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, MDI 9 Comments »Monday 13th February
Talk: “Islam and terrorism- is there a relationship?”
Speaker: Adam Deen
Venue: Fulton A
Time: 6-8pm
♦
Tuesday 14th of February
Talk: “Jesus Christ: Prophet or God”
Speaker: Paul Williams
Venue: Arts A2
Time: 7:00pm-8:30pm
♦
Wednesday 15th of February
Talk: “Shariah Law:Barbaric or Misunderstood”
Speaker: Abdullah Al Andalusi
Venue: Arts A1
Time: 6-8pm
♦
Monday 20th of February
Talk: “Islam or Secularism: Which one makes more sense”
Abdullah Al-Andalusi
Room:TBC
We Must Separate What is Cultural From What is Essential – Jeffrey Lang
Posted: February 9, 2012 Filed under: Islam, lectures, Videos Leave a comment »Beautiful Character of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) – Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Posted: February 8, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Islam Leave a comment »He had a soft and gentle character, he was not harsh…”It’s by a Mercy of your Lord you were gentle…and if you were harsh and hard hearted, they would have fled from around you.” The Quran
Hamza Yusuf Hanson is an Islamic scholar, teacher, and co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkley, California, United States. He is an American convert to Islam, and is one of the signatories of A Common Word Between Us and You, an open letter by Islamic scholars to Christian leaders, calling for peace and understanding.
The Problem of Evil debate – Sami Zaatari vs Farhan Qureshi
Posted: February 7, 2012 Filed under: Debates, MDI, Videos 47 Comments »The public debate on the Problem of Evil debating questions on why it exists, and why God allows it’s existance in the Universe. Welcome to the public debate.
Sami Zaatari – International Speaker and member of Muslim Debate Initiative.
Debates
Farhan Qureshi – American Ex-Qadiyani Agnostic speaker on Eastern Philosophy and Universalism.
————————————–
UPDATE: 11th February 2012
From: Farhan Qureshi
To: Abdullah MDI
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012, 5:28
Subject: Statement for MDI
Here is my statement:
In January 2012 I had the opportunity to engage the entire Muslim Debate Initiative team which was by far a spectacular and spiritual experience for me. MDI showed me nothing but kindness and hospitality and represented their faith and tradition completely in a positive and respectful manner. Being a former Muslim I was absolutely humbled by their character and professionalism throughout my stay in London. I thank them again for their invitation and willingness to engage in debate on controversial issues. This speaks volumes in terms of their genuine faith and dedication.
Farhan Qureshi
There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet
Posted: February 7, 2012 Filed under: articles by Ashmath, Guest article, Islam 2 Comments »Tonight I stepped out in the cold night air, under an indigo sky peppered with sparkling stars and I took the shahada.
I had been planning to become a Muslim on some special day, in some really noteworthy way, but it began to feel a bit disingenuous – as though I was trying to fool Allah. I had been slowly coming to realize that I already believed what the shahada said, so that by putting off saying it officially I was actually just keeping myself from the duties of a Muslim. I realized that I was already Muslim in all but name.
After I came back inside after saying the shahada, I took a shower as I had read was recommended. Then my daughter requested that I sit down with her on the couch and spend time with her. So I did. And life continues as before.
Except I am now a Muslim. I feel that it is right and natural. I shall need to begin to pray and learn in earnest. And I shall also say it in front of the ummah, at a local masjid, as soon as I am able so that there will be witnesses.
Alhamdulillah!
Share this:
Gay Marriage and Islam: A Muslim Response
Posted: February 4, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam, Militant Secularism, The Bible, The News 7 Comments »
- The Bishop of London, Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres
Today’s London Times proclaims:
Bishop of London backs gay marriage rebellion among clergy
“The Bishop of London has welcomed a rebellion by nearly a quarter of his clergy calling for churches to be permitted to register for civil partnerships.”
This is reported fully today in The Times but that article is behind a paywall.
The Mail Online has a free version:
“Nearly 100 clergy have joined a rebellion over a Church of England ban on civil partnership ceremonies.”
“The clergy have signed a letter demanding that the General Synod, the Church’s parliament, allow priests to hold ceremonies for same-sex couples in their churches.”
So how does Islam view the prospect of ‘Gay marriage’?
I think some preliminary remarks are in order:
People who complain that Muslims refuse to fit in with what are called “civilised values” are unaware of just what is being demanded of Muslims. These values are part of the air we breath whether our politics are of the left or right, conservative or liberal. They are the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.
I think they can be summarised in four ways:
Firstly, man is now the measure of all things and nothing is to be judged in relation to an absolute or to a transcendent reality.
Secondly, man is both judge and criterion of judgement. There is no higher court of appeal or source of pardon.
Thirdly, whatever happens occurs within earthly time, for human existence stretches only from birth to death. Mans earthly life is therefore unconditionally important; to live is the supreme value, at death the game is over and lost.
Finally, there is the conviction that man is basically good; the evil which surrounds him is never his fault. It can only be blamed on institutions, on society, the economic system or defective education.
These beliefs, so readily taken for granted, cannot be reconciled with Islam (or traditional Christianity). What we do in this life echoes in eternity and we will be held to account for all our actions and thoughts by a God who is both completely just and the most merciful of all those who show mercy. Mankind is called to submit to Gods will, not to do our own will. As Jesus is reported to have said to his Lord, ‘May thy will be done, not mine’. This spiritual disposition is vanishing fast from Britain’s Christian churches, which have made some astonishing compromises with the spirit of the age. But Muslims see religion as a citadel resistant to decadence and changing tides of opinion, not as one strand in the pattern of modern life – the western way of life – but as an alternative to it. Those who have gone astray are invited to return and that is that. For Muslims there is one fixed mark, set down in the midst of times flow and that is the Faith as it came from God through the Prophet.
So back to our question: ‘How does Islam view the prospect of ‘Gay marriage?’
Muslims, and the dwindling band of traditional Christians, find this campaign to legitimise so-called ‘gay marriage’ astonishing (and abhorrent) for two reasons:
The very idea that men and women can alter God’s clearly expressed will seems like presumption and blasphemy. The Christian churches, it seems, are trying desperately to keep up with the times and are in dereliction of their duty to be faithful to the revelation they received.
Secondly, God has expressly given us his commands in the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran. They cannot be changed. We, as Muslims, stand should to shoulder with those few remaining traditionalist clergy who resist these compromises with modernism and secularism.
Traditionally Christianity has taught unambiguously that a priest or a Bishop is somebody who ought to live by the Bible and accept that the Bible’s teaching is quite clear in this matter – that heterosexual marriage is the right and only context for sexual relationships. And Muslims of course agree.
To the surprise of many, we have the ironic situation where Islam is not a threat to traditional British values, which historically are based on Christian values, but their ally. Islam complements and reinforces them. I could duplicate many times over the same point: whether it be the sanctity of life, opposition to abortion on demand, the rejection of euthanasia and assisted suicide, or the respect and courtesy due to women, Muslims find a natural affinity with the few remaining traditional Christians in our churches, and hence with the best of British values and culture which were formed by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
But of course Islam is a challenge to the forces of atheist materialism that reduce the individual to a mere consumer of goods; it is a challenge to those hedonist philosophies that deny God and worship the man-made idols of short-term pleasure and greed.
In conclusion, we must ask why have the churches at the beginning of the 21st century abandoned the teaching of the Torah, Jesus of Nazareth, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Reformers?
Perhaps a consideration of the larger social context will suggest a possible solution.
Muslim philosopher Shabbir Akhtar in his excellent book The Quran and the Secular Mind (2008) comments provocatively (p.7):
‘We must note that there are now few authentically religious Jews and Christians in the West even among the clergy and the rabbinate. All intellectually sophisticated Jews and Christians are secularised and, in their attitudes towards domestic issues, as opposed to foreign policy, are typically humane capitalists whose religious beliefs serve as a decorative veneer on their underlying secularised religious humanism. All charges are variations on the stock Muslim accusation, rooted in the Qur’an, that Jews and Christians have achieved a cosy accommodation with the world – or with modern secularism, in our day – at the cost of being unfaithful to their dogmatic traditions. Modern versions of Christianity and Judaism appear to be carefully disguised variants of secular humanism. Predictably, therefore, many Jews and Christians, unlike virtually all Muslims, live conscientiously and comfortably within the arrangements of the liberal secular humanist state. Islam is now unique in its existential decision, though not intellectual capacity, to confront rather than accommodate the secularist world-view. It is a faith whose adherents are sounding a lone note of courageous defiance in the battle against secularism while other trumpets are blowing retreat.
5 things the Khilafah gave the world
Posted: February 4, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Islam Leave a comment »
The Quran: The Divine Quality Control Over Previous Scriptures
Posted: January 30, 2012 Filed under: articles by Toobaa Kurd, Christian extremism, Islam 8 Comments »If you saw my debate with Rev Dr Steve Latham you will recall that during my opening presentation I quoted the following passage from the Quran:
And unto thee O Prophet have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth
the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations
and determining what is true therein.Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with
what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views,
forsaking the truth that has come unto thee.
(Surah 5:48)
Recently, my use of this passage has come under sustained attack from some fundamentalist Christians who say that this is a false & tendentious translation of the passage.
So I asked a good friend of mine Toobaa Kurd (a qualified Arabist) for her assessment of the passage: I asked her to evaluate the text and let me know if she considers it to be a good translation of the original Arabic. I am very grateful for all her time and effort.
She replied as follows:
Here is my understanding of the question:
In order to illustrate what the Qur’an (“TMQ“) claims of the position of previous scriptures, you quoted TMQ 5:48, as translated by Asad:
And unto thee O Prophet have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein.
Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee.
This assertion was subsequently criticised and the following arguments made:
- that the Qur’an, which is described as musaddiq and muhaymin over previous scriptures, suggests that it protects previous scriptures from being lost or corrupted; and
- that the words “whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein” are an interpolation.
A very simple response to argument (1) would be that, insofar as the Qur’an confirms or corroborates any specific part of previous revelation, those parts are “preserved” through the Qur’an. However, the Arabic does not point to “preservation” in this ayah and the Qur’an is doing something much more advanced, including setting a standard for what qualifies as “the book”/”earlier revelations”, as I will show below. In any event the ayah does not demonstrate argument (1) above. This leaves Ken to rely on a “lone English translation”, (Ahmed Ali: preserving them (from change and corruption)” – I will show below that the “preservation” idea does not really stand and, even here, Ahmed Ali tentatively uses brackets).
With regards to Argument (2), it should be noted that translations of the Qur’an cannot be word-for-word translations, and at best will be interpretations of, or meanings of, the Qur’an. Indeed, the variety of meanings for any one word in Arabic cannot be expressed in any other language. I have considered the Arabic ayah against Asad’s delivery of it and found that Asad’s translation is a good example of this reality. (I’ll refer to it as a translation for ease of reference in this email). This is mainly because the translator: (i) does not use parentheses where he has made inferences that are not directly mentioned in the Arabic; and (ii) sets the meaning of nuanced phrases in beautiful terms but, in fact, is not very different from the others, such as those that Ken cited. I will demonstrate this below.
I have considered the question mainly from a linguistic point of view and have set out my reasoning under the following questions:
- What is the translator’s drafting style?
- What does musaddiq mean?
- Which “scriptures” are being referred to?
- What does muhaymin mean?
1. Asad’s Style
- And unto thee O Prophet have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth,
In the simplest terms possible, the Arabic says: “And we have sent down to you the book in truth”. It is usually inferred that “you” refers to Muhammad (s). However, you will note that other translators, such as Muhsin Khan, will put “Muhammad/Prophet” in brackets to show that it is not in the Arabic, but inferred.
The Arabic also simply says ‘the book’ – it doesn’t say “divine writ” – again, this is an example of interpretation rather than a translation.
The Arabic, “bilHaqq” can mean that the Book is revealed “in truth”, or “with the truth”.
So far, you will notice that the underlined are inferred meanings (which should be marked in brackets) or interpretations, or just flowery language as opposed to word-for-word translations. His style of ornate language and not using parentheses continues below.
2. Musaddiq
- confirming the truth
The root (s-d-q) means to speak the truth; to prove to be true; to fit exactly; to keep, or fulfill, one’s promise. What Asad has quite reasonably translated as “confirming the truth” is the word musaddiq, which is the participle of the second form of this root, meaning: to deem credible, accept as true; to consider or pronounce as true. Musaddiq is also used to mean certification or attestation. Almost every translator has translated this as “confirming” or “verifying”. This “confirmation” can also point to what the early scriptures promised of Allah’s final Prophet (s). This meaning is also highlighted by Sher Ali, who makes use of the first form of the verb and translates it as “fulfilling”.
3. The Book
- of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations
What is being confirmed or verified here? The subject of the confirmation is what is “bayna yadayhi” of “the book” (“of the book” being, “min al kitaab”).
(i) “bayna yadayhi”
Literally, “bayna yadayhi” means “between his two hands” and, as an idiom, means “in front of or before him; in his presence; in his power”. Some translators deliver this as “what came before”.
To understand the use*, note the preceding ayah (TMQ 5:46), where it is used in reference to Jesus (as) and the Injeel “confirming” (musaddiq) what was “bayna yadayhi” of the Torah. Ibn Kathir, in his exegesis (here), explains this as meaning that Jesus (as) adhered to it (the Torah) and ruled by it (i.e. it was in his presence and power). It also appears that the Injeel abrogated parts of the Torah (TMQ 3:50: “And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you.”). If the Injeel abrogated the Torah, then what is the nature of the “confirmation” of it? This does not point to “preservation”. On the contrary, it points to fulfilling or confirming what is correct of it (understanding naskh and how the Qur’an abrogates itself, will explain this – the abrogation and the abrogated were both “correct” but the abrogated no longer valid).
(ii) “of the book”
In light of the above, “whatever there still remains” is one valid interpretation of “bayna yadayhi min al kitaab” (“min al kitaab” – “of the book”). To be clear, the ayah states “We reveal to you the book [...] confirming what was bayna yadayhi of the book. In other words, it is not referring to or contrasting with specific scriptures like the Torah or Injeel. Indeed, corruptions of “the book” would not be considered part of “the book” and would not be “confirmed”. As such, it appears to be confirming what would actually qualify as “the book”. Hence, Asad suggests it only confirms what remains of it in its original form. This translation agrees with the other translations.
Also, contrary to what critics may assert, there is no language in the Arabic ayah to suggest preventative action from future corruption or loss of the old scriptures. At best, it “confirms” or “fulfills” what currently existed of it in its original form when TMQ 5:48 was revealed (hence Asad’s choice of words). This is further emphasised by the below.
4. Muhaymin
- and determining what is true therein.
The word that Asad has translated as “determining” is muhaymin. This is from the root (h-y-m-n) (an unusual quadriliteral root) which means to say “amen”. When used with the preposition “alaa” (as it is here), it means to guard; to watch; to control; to keep an eye on. The derivative, muhaymin means supervising; controlling; guardian; master of. Following from these meanings, some have translated this as a “criterion” or “hegemony”. ”[D]etermining what is true therein” is another way of saying “guarding what would qualify as “the book”" and is a valid interpretation ofmuhaymin. The critics suggest that it means “to preserve” – it simply does not (notably, the Qur’an uses words with the root of (h-f-dh) when describing the promised preservation of the Qur’an (see TMQ 15:9).
As such, we can see that Asad’s translation is thoughtful and deeply involved in the interpretation and meaning – but it has to be or these phrases and terms would not make sense in English. In any case, it is not a deviant or lone translation and the ayah itself does not point to the “preservation” of earlier revelations.
*This phrase is used at least 17 times in the Qur’an. See TMQ 2:97, 3:3, 5:46, 5:48, 6:92, 10:37, 12:111, 13:11, 25:27, 34:12, 34:31, 35:31, 41:42, 46:21, 46:30, 76:67.
Far from an ‘expert’ view, this is just my own opinion, but I hope this is helpful, and my apologies in advance for any incoherence.
Salaam.
One year on: Arab Spring – The 4 Burning Questions
Posted: January 29, 2012 Filed under: Islam, The News, Videos Leave a comment »What I Wrote From My Heart – Malcolm X
Posted: January 29, 2012 Filed under: Islam 33 Comments »
- Malcolm X
Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Muhammad and all the other Prophets of the Holy Scriptures. For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors.
I have been blessed to visit the Holy City of Makkah, I have made my seven circuits around the ka’bah, led by a young religious guide (mutawaf) named Muhammad, I drank water from the well of the Zam-Zam. I ran seven times back and forth between the hills of Mt. as-Safa and al-Marwah. I have prayed in the ancient city of Mina, and I have prayed on Mt. Arafat.
There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blondes to black-skinned Africans. But we were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white.
America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered white – but the white attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color.
You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. This was not too difficult for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds it. I have always kept an open mind, which is necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for truth.
During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same rug – while praying to the same God – with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the deeds of the white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana.
We were truly all the same (brothers) – because their belief in one God had removed the white from their minds, the white from their behaviour, and the white from their attitude.
I could see from this, that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man – and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their ‘differences’ in color.
With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called ‘Christian’ white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster – the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves.
Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities – he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path, I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the walls and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth – the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to.
Never have I been so highly honored. Never have I been made to feel more humble and unworthy. Who would believe the blessings that have been heaped upon an American Negro? A few nights ago, a man who would be called in America a white man, a United Nations diplomat, an ambassador, a companion of kings, gave me his hotel suite, his bed. Never would I have even thought of dreaming that I would ever be a recipient of such honors – honors that in America would be bestowed upon a King – not a Negro.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds.
Sincerely,
Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X)
*
A Letter by Malcolm X, (may Allah have mercy upon him). Quoted from The Autobiography of Malcolm X printed by Penguin Classics
The Christology of the Synoptic Gospels: some introductory comments
Posted: January 29, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, The Bible Leave a comment »Today, however, such a reading of the gospels is no longer possible. To start with the most obvious observation: there are four gospels, and each has a different picture of Jesus and his teaching. The fourth gospel, that of St John, presents the reader with a substantially different account of the teaching of Jesus, a conflicting chronology of his life (for example the date of Jesus’ crucifixion) and perhaps most significantly, presents a christology that is radically different from the synoptics. Thus NT scholars have long concluded that the gospels tell us as much about the views of their authors as they do about the events they allegedly describe.
As Christopher Tuckett (Professor of New Testament Studies in the University of Oxford) in his critically acclaimed work Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers Edinburgh University Press 2001) comments:
‘The picture of Jesus in John is in many respects very different from the picture in the other three, so-called ‘synoptic’, Gospels. Furthermore, most would agree that, in general terms, the synoptic picture is more likely to reflect the realities of Jesus‘ own time, and the Johannine account represents an (at times) extensive rewriting of the Jesus tradition by a later Christian profoundly influenced by his own ideas and circumstances. However, it is now recognised that what applies to the Fourth Gospel applies equally to all the Gospel: the synoptic Gospels, quite as much as John, have been influenced by the ideas and the circumstances of their authors. Thus in reading all the Gospels, we have to be aware of the fact that we reading accounts of Jesus‘ life as mediated by later Christians and hence we may learn much, if not more, about the latter as about Jesus himself in studying the Gospel texts.’
pp. 105-106 (emphasis in original)
‘Jesus is Lord’
Posted: January 29, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, The Bible Leave a comment »by JDG Dunn
The history of this confession of Jesus as Lord in earliest Christianity largely revolves round the question, How significant is the application of this title to Jesus? What role or status does this confession attribute to Jesus or recognise as belonging to Jesus?…The problem is that ‘lord’ can denote a whole range of dignity – from a respectful form of address as to a teacher or judge to a full title for God. Where do the early Christian references to the lordship of Jesus come within this spectrum? The answer seems to be that over the first few decades of Christianity the confession of Jesus as ‘Lord’ moved in overt significance from the lower end of the ‘spectrum of dignity’ towards the upper end steadily gathering to itself increasing overtones of deity.
We need not doubt that the Aramaic mari underlies the Greek kyrie (vocative)…Mar was used of the first century BC holy man Abba Hilkiah, presumably in recognition of the charismatic powers attributed to him. Moreover, ‘lord’ was largely synonymous with ‘teacher’ at the time of Jesus, and Jesus was certainly recognised to have the authority of a rabbi or teacher (Mark 9:5 etc). We can therefore say that the confession of Jesus as Lord was rooted within the ministry of Jesus to the extent that he was widely acknowledged to exercise the authority of a (charismatic) teacher and healer (cf. Mark 1:22,27).
Whether ‘Lord’ already had a higher significance for Jesus himself during his ministry depends on how we evaluate Mark 12:35-37:
‘While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, ‘Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
‘ “The Lord said to my Lord:
‘Sit at my right hand
Until I put your enemies
Under your feet.”‘David himself calls him “Lord”. How then can he be his son?’
Even if it contains an authentic word of the historical Jesus (as is quite possible) it need only mean that he understood Messiah to be a figure superior to David in significance and specially favoured by Yahweh. It does not necessarily imply that he thought the Messiah was a divine figure (Psalm 110 after all probably referred to the king).
*
From: Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (emphasis in the original) pp.53-54.
So Dunn recognises that the title ‘lord’ originally denoted a human being. As the term began to be used in pagan contexts as the Gentile mission spread, where it was well established as a title for the cult deity in the mystery religions (especially Isis and Serapis), and also in Emperor worship – ‘Caesar is Lord’- a radical alteration of the meaning of the term occurred. Above all, St Paul advanced this change in meaning quite deliberately. He uses Old Testament texts that speak of Yahweh and applies them to Jesus (e.g. Romans 10:13). For Paul, ‘Lord Jesus’ had become a title of divinity.
In a profound sense, Paul founded the religion of Christianity we know today.
The Purpose of Life – Jeffrey Lang
Posted: January 28, 2012 Filed under: Atheism, Islam, Videos 1 Comment »Dr Jeffrey Lang is currently Professor of Mathematics in the University of Kansas
I attend Jumuah for the first time
Posted: January 28, 2012 Filed under: articles by Ashmath, Guest article, Islam Leave a comment »by Ashmath
About 17 years ago, I had just read Karen Armstrong’s book, A History of God and was telephoning a local masjid to ask about the possibility of attending services. The man who answered the phone asked me a little bit about myself and seemed a bit taken aback when I told him that I was of Jewish descent. “We don’t get many Jews,” he told me.
I’d always had a bit of a theological bent, but Karen Armstrong’s book was my first exposure to Islam, and it piqued my curiosity. Alas, at that time my life was rapidly disintegrating, along with my second marriage, and my plans to attend Friday worship fell by the wayside.
Over the years I’ve attended a few synagogues and literally dozens of churches. There were some Sundays when I was looking for a church home, that I’d attend two churches on one Sunday. But attending a mosque? Perhaps it reveals that I am still prey to some residue of the popular misconceptions about Islam that I was so intimidated by the thought.
I work in the downtown area of a major metropolitan area on the west coast of the U.S. and found, via Salatomatic, that I am just three blocks away from where services are held during lunch hour on Fridays. Pretty lucky, eh? No excuse not to go and check it out, right?
So today, almost two decades later, and only about 4 years after I began reading the Qur’an, I actually did it -I attended Jumuah.
After a brief walk in the beautiful winter sunshine, I began to spot kufis converging a few blocks ahead of me and knew that I was in the right area. Services were being held in the auditorium of a downtown church, and as I walked in I could see the area set aside for prayer, with rows of rugs laid down in preparation for worshippers.
Some folks noticed that I looked a bit lost and very kindly asked after me and directed me to someone who could talk with me. A very tall gentleman shook my hand warmly and began to talk to me about his journey into Islam. He was very warm and welcoming and gave me some pamphlets to read. I asked whether it would be alright for me to just observe the prayers today, as I was not familiar enough with them to perform them myself. He offered me a chair in the back and went off to help others.
I was surprised by the number of worshippers who showed up. I expected people to show up, but wasn’t expecting over a hundred people. All of the prayer rugs were taken, and some men knelt on the hardwood floor of the auditorium to pray. It was a different experience to see all these worshippers on the floor instead of sitting in wooden pews. It brought to mind humility before God, and the commonality of the worshippers as members of the ummah, the community of believers. And, much as Malcolm X described his eye-opening experience of the Hajj, I was surrounded by every shade of skin from palest white to darkest brown.
The men trickled in and performed their individual prayers before a sermon was given. As I’ve mentioned, the place filled up. The sermon wasn’t fancy, but it was good – without the showmanship and histrionics of so many evangelical Christian services. It seemed to be over pretty quickly so that everyone could get back to work.
In the middle of this busy workday, it was no surprise or disappointment that most people didn’t pay any attention to me, but a few men did approach me and offer handshakes. Their gestures of welcome were very much appreciated.
I do plan to attend again, but I’ll need to learn more about how to perform wudu and salat before next time.
Why the Christian Understanding of Salvation is ‘Morally Grotesque’
Posted: January 27, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam, The Bible 26 Comments »
Here is an extract from my opening presentation at London Central mosque in December 2011:
Islam places great stress on God as a God of mercy and forgiveness whom the individual can approach directly without the need of any mediator or priest. God says in the Quran:
‘O My servants, who have transgressed against their souls. Do not despair of the mercy of God, for He forgives all sins, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’
(39:53). From this understanding, which was shared by Jesus, flow certain critical observations regarding the later Christian view of the necessity of Jesus’ alleged vicarious atonement.
The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque. Or if we say that God in the person of God the Son punished himself in order to be able to justly forgive sinners, we still have the absurdity of a moral law which God must satisfy by punishing the innocent in place of the guilty. As the medieval theologian St Anselm wrote in his work Why God Became Man (Cur Deus Homo), ‘it is a strange thing if God so delights in, or requires, the blood of the innocent, that he neither chooses, nor is able, to spare the guilty without the sacrifice of the innocent’.
I believe the basic fault of the Christian understanding of salvation is that it has no room for divine forgiveness. For a forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the offering of a sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that a debt has been paid in full. The Cross is not a symbol of forgiveness at all: on the orthodox Christian view, it denotes the repayment of a debt, as the infinity of Original Sin is atoned for by the infinite sacrifice of God’s own temporary death. But what humanity really needs, as we look back over our long record of disobedience, is a model of true forgiveness by a God who does not calculate, who imposes no mean-spirited ‘economy of salvation’ worthy only of accountants and bookkeepers. As the Bible teaches: The letter killeth – the spirit giveth life.
But in the authentic teaching of Jesus to be found in the synoptic gospels (that is the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who truly repent. In the Lord’s Prayer we are taught to address God directly and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another. There is no suggestion of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.
One of the most famous of all Jesus’ parables is found in Luke’s gospel: the so-called parable of the prodigal son. It is a story about how God treats repentant sinners. Note that the father when he sees his repentant son returning home does not say ‘Because I am a just as well as a loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly punished for his sins’, but rather he had compassion, and ran and embraced him and welcomed him home. So God does not need a sacrifice in order to forgive anyone. As the English convert from Christianity to Islam Ruqaiyyah Maqsood wrote: ‘the split-second of turning from Christianity to Islam is the realisation of the truth of the parable of the Prodigal Son. In the parables, God is loving enough to forgive directly. That was the whole glory of the Judaism which Jesus upheld.’
Another example is to be found in Luke’s story of the tax collector and the Pharisee, the tax collector standing far off would not lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner’. Jesus declared that this man went home justified before God. Jesus insisted that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy: ‘Go and learn what this means, he said, quoting God: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Matt 9.13)
In my experience Christians often use the analogy of a ‘debt’ to explain how God needs someone to pay off our sin debt to him, and, because of his justice, he must take the payment from someone. Jesus however had very different ideas about God, namely that God is quite able to just cancel our debt of sin and forgive the sinner.
In Matthew 18 we read Jesus’ teaching:
The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of pounds. He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.
“But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
“But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand pounds. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.
“His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full.
“When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.
“That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.”
So God freely forgives our sins and expects us to forgive our neighbour too. The Lord’s Prayer, of course, has the same commandment.
So how is a human being to attain eternal life, that is, how are we to be saved? Interestingly, Jesus was asked this very question and you can read his answer in the gospel according to Mark chapter 10. Here is the story:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Note that Jesus does not tell the man that he must put his faith in Jesus, or that salvation is solely dependent on Jesus dying to atone for his sins. No. As a humble Jew Jesus recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; that to sincerely obey the commands of the Torah is the main road to salvation, but in this individual’s case he lacked just one thing – he needed to give away his wealth to the poor and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven. Note carefully the sequence.
That this passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels) is evident from the changes they made to Jesus’ words by removing his denial that he is good
Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Instead of Mark’s original ‘why do you call me good?’)
By way of contrast let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question about salvation in Romans 10:9:
If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
The differences are startling. As we have seen, Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah and giving to the poor. As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus taught that faithfulness to God is to be expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah. Paul’s religion focused on Jesus and he claimed that the Torah had been abolished. Jesus in Matthew chapter 5 taught precisely the opposite.
Jesus’ teaching was fully in accord with contemporary Jewish understanding. Leading Jesus scholar EP Sanders, in his authoritative work on Jesus’ Jewish background says, and I quote, ‘The forgiveness of repentant sinners is a major motif in virtually all the Jewish material which is still available from the period (p 18, Sanders Jesus and Judaism). For Judaism sees human nature as basically good and yet also with an evil inclination that has to be continually resisted. However, God being aware of our finitude and weakness is always ready to forgive the truly repentant. In Islam there is a very similar view.
God is frequently described in the Quran as ar Rahman ir Rahim (The Merciful and the Compassionate).
Jesus, mirroring the teaching of the Quran, teaches that God knows our weakness and forgives those who, in the self-surrender of faith, bow before the compassionate Lord of the universe. Once, the Prophet Muhammad reported that the Devil said: ‘By my honour, O Lord, I shall never stop misguiding your servants so long as life remains in their bodies! The Almighty, the Glorious Lord, said: By My honour, I shall never cease forgiving them, so long as they ask forgiveness of Me!‘ (Ahmad).
Another wonderful saying is: ‘O son of Adam – so long as you call upon Me and ask of me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins as great as the earth itself, and were you then to face Me ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness in equal measure.’ (Tirmidhi, Ahman).
However, it needs to be pointed out that just as some people refuse to stop on the crazy path to their own destruction, despite the intercession of their loved ones, so the future lives of some people will be extremely unpleasant because of their absolute refusal to accept the love and mercy of God and to live in a way that is acceptable to him.
God tells us in the Quran: ‘If God were to punish people according to their wrongdoing, he would not leave on earth a single living creature; but He gives them respite for a stated term; and when their term expires, they will not be able to delay their fate for a single hour, just as they cannot bring it forward by a single hour.‘ (16:61)
Our salvation lies in our own hands and in the supreme compassion of Allah, who loves each individual He has created.
***
I would like to share with you some teaching about God’s mercy and forgiveness that is to be found in authentic Hadith. The way they speak of God may surprise you if you think that Muslims believe in a remote and distant deity.
The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, Indeed, God is more happy with the repentance of His servant than a man who stops in a barren, desolate land; with him he has his riding animal. He then goes to sleep. When he wakes up he realizes that his mount is gone. He searches for it until he is on the verge of dying (for the mount was carrying his supplies and provisions). He then says, “I will return to the place wherein I lost it, and I will die there.” He went to that place, and he was then overcome by sleep. When he woke up, his mount was standing right beside his head: on it was his food, his drink, his provisions, and the things he needed. God is more happy with the repentance of his believing servant than the aforementioned man when he finds his mount and his provisions. (Bukhari & Muslim)
*
A man heard chirping in a thicket, found some young birds, and took them. Their mother came and flew around his head, so he uncovered them and, when she alighted on them, wrapped them up together in his garment and brought them to the Prophet. He commanded the man to put them down and he did so. The mother would not leave them. The prophet said, “Do you wonder at the mercy of the chick’s mother for her young? By Him who sent me with the truth, God shows more mercy to His servants than this mother shows to her young. Take them back and put them where you found them, and their mother with them.” (Abu Daud).
*
The Quran says:
“Say, if you love Allah, obey me (Muhammad), Allah will love you and forgive you your sins, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” Quran 3:31
*
For them will be a Home Of Peace in the presence Of their Lord: He will be Their Friend, because they practiced righteousness. (Quran 6:127)
*
“To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward” Quran 5:9
*
The messenger of God said, ‘When God completed the creation He wrote the following, which is with Him above His throne: ’My mercy takes precedence over My wrath’
*
The Prophet said, “Among those who came before you there was a man who had murdered ninety-nine people. Then he set out asking whether his repentance could be accepted or not. He came upon a monk and asked him if his repentance could be accepted. The monk replied in the negative and so the man killed him. He kept on asking till a man advised him to go to such and such village. So he left for it but death overtook him on the way. While dying, he turned his chest towards that village where he had hoped his repentance would be accepted, and so the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment quarreled amongst themselves regarding him. Allah ordered the village towards which he was going to come closer to him, and ordered the village whence he had come to go far away, and then He ordered the angels to measure the distances between his body and the two villages. So he was found to be one span closer to the village he was going to. So he was forgiven.”
The messenger of God pbuh said: ’No one will be saved from the hell-fire and admitted into Paradise by his deeds alone. When asked, ‘Not even you O messenger of God? he said, ‘Yes, not even me, unless God covers me with His mercy.
*
And finally,
A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and asked,’ When will the day of judgment come?’ The Prophet replied, ‘What have you prepared for the judgment day that you are so concerned for it? He replied, ‘I do not have any good deeds in my account, but I do have one thing: I love Allah and His Messenger.’ The Prophet then said, ‘In that case, do not worry; you will be with those whom you love.’”
(Bukhari)
*
This is Islam’s great secret, unknown to most in the West: the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This man’s life and teaching came to me as a complete surprise. What an amazing man! A real prophet of God.
But above even this - dare I say it - is the outrageous and astonishing grace and mercy of God!
Compel belief? The Quran Says No!
Posted: January 18, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Islam 3 Comments »باسم الله الرحمان الرحيم
If it had been the Lord’s Will they would all have believed all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to believe!
No soul can believe except by the Will of Allah and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.
Surah 10 verses 99-100. Abdullah Yusuf Ali comments:
If it had been God’s Plan or Will not to grant the limited Free Will that He has granted to man, His omnipotence could have made all mankind alike: all would then have had Faith, but that Faith would have reflected no merit on them. In the actual world as it is, man has been endowed with various faculties and capacities, so that he should strive and explore, and bring himself into harmony with God’s Will. Hence Faith becomes a moral achievement, and to resist Faith becomes a sin. As a complementary proposition, men of Faith must not be impatient or angry if they have to contend against Unfaith, and most important of all, they must guard against the temptation of forcing Faith, i.e., imposing it on others by physical compulsion, or any other forms of compulsion such as social pressure, or inducements held out by wealth or position, or other adventitious advantages. Forced faith is no faith. They should strive spiritually and let God’s Plan work as He wills.
To creatures endued with Will, Faith comes out of an active use of that Will. But we must not be so arrogant as to suppose that that is enough. At best, man is weak and in need of God’s grace and help. If we sincerely wish to understand, He will help our Faith; but if not, our doubts and difficulties will only be increased. This follows as a necessary consequence, and in Qur’ānic language all consequences are ascribed to God, the Cause of Causes.
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Muslim Version || Spoken Word || Response
Posted: January 16, 2012 Filed under: Christianity, Cool stuff, Islam, Poetry, Videos 1 Comment »Islam and Homosexuality – by Hamza Yusuf
Posted: January 7, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Islam Leave a comment »A Very Early Easter Sermon
Posted: January 6, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity | Tags: blood sacrifice, evangelical christians, giles fraser Leave a comment »Thinking about the celebration of Holy Week in my new adopted cathedral brings home to me quite how important it is for Christians to insist upon a non-sacrificial reading of the death of Christ. For too long, Christians have put up with a theory of salvation that has at its core the idea that God requires the sacrifice of his own son so that human sin can be cancelled. “There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin,” we will all sing. The fact this is a disgusting idea, and morally degenerate, is obvious to all but those indoctrinated into a very narrow reading of the cross.
No, Jesus is not a blood sacrifice to appease a vicious God. The story is not an endorsement of the idea that sacrifice brings peace with God but an attack on it. “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” Jesus insists, going on to side with the scapegoats themselves. The Gospel is clear. I am with the hunchback. I am with the one cast out. He became one with the rejected and the cast out. And thus he suffered the same fate. This is not to endorse sacrificial theology but to condemn it.
Yet despite this clear identification with the victim, much official Christianity holds on to the sacrificial reading of Christ’s death. The present pope has insisted that the Eucharist must be seen as a sacrifice rather than as a meal among friends, and evangelical Christians remain committed to their theory of Christ being sacrificed to offset human sin.
Lord have mercy.
————————-
The above text is an extract from an article originally in the Guardian newspaper 2009
It was entitled: The merciful crucifixion: What vicious God would demand Jesus sacrificed for our sins? We should ditch this view of Easter
The Strange Silence of Christian Apologist Sam Shamoun
Posted: December 27, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Debates 54 Comments »
Mr Sam Shamoun
Part 1
Mr Sam Shamoun has kindly reviewed my recent debate with Rev Dr Steve Latham on the subject of ‘Salvation in Islam and Christianity’.
Mr S Shamoun has compiled 14 separate responses which can be viewed here. I do not propose on this occasion to go through each and every point raised, but do I intend to focus on several key arguments in my presentation about which Mr S Shamoun is strangely silent.
I paraphrase here some key points that I made in my debate:
In Luke 15 Jesus’ teaches his disciples how God treats repentant sinners. (I am sure Mr S Shamoun is familiar with the passage so I will not reproduce it here.) Note that the Father when he sees his repentant son returning home does not say ‘Because I am a just as well as a loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly punished for his sins’, but rather he had compassion, and ran and embraced him and welcomed him home. So God in this story does not need a sacrifice in order to forgive anyone. God is loving enough to forgive directly. That was the whole glory of the Judaism which Jesus upheld.
Another example is to be found in Luke 18, the story of the tax collector and the Pharisee. The tax collector stood far off and would not lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner’. Jesus declared that this man went home justified before God. This verdict is worth repeating: Jesus declared that this man went home justified before God. Note Jesus does not mention the necessity of God dying for the man’s sins first. ‘For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.’ So this is how we are justified before God!
In my experience Christians often use the analogy of a ‘debt’ to explain how God needs someone to pay off our sin debt to him, and, because of his justice, he must take the payment from someone. Jesus however had very different ideas about God, namely that God is quite able to just cancel our debt of sin and forgive the sinner.
In my debate I made repeated reference to Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God in Matthew 18. This key text teaches how God deals with our sins. I had hoped Mr S Shamoun would respond to this teaching of Jesus. So just in case he missed it, here it is again:
The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of pounds. He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.
“But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
“But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand pounds. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.
“His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full.
“When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.
“That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.”
I invite Mr S Shamoun to notice that according to Jesus, God freely forgives our sins. There is no mention of God dying for our sins or for the alleged necessity of God punishing sinners. The Lord’s Prayer, of course, has the same soteriology.
So how is a human being to attain eternal life, that is, how are we to be saved? I would have liked Mr S Shamoun to respond to Jesus’ teaching on this point in Mark 10. Perhaps Mr S Shamoun did not hear that part of my debate either. So here again is the story:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Did Mr S Shamoun notice that Jesus does not tell the man that he must put his faith in Jesus, or that salvation is solely dependent on Jesus dying to atone for his sins? As a humble Jew Jesus recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; that to sincerely obey the commands of the Torah is the main road to salvation, but in this individual’s case he lacked just one thing – he needed to give away his wealth to the poor and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven. Did Mr S Shamoun note carefully the sequence?
I had hoped Mr S Shamoun would take cognizance of how this passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels), as is evident from the changes they made to Jesus’ words by removing his denial that he is good.
Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Instead of Mark’s original ‘why do you call me good?’)
By way of contrast let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question about salvation in Romans 10:9:
If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
The differences are startling. As we have seen, Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah and giving to the poor. As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus taught that faithfulness to God is to be expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah. Paul’s religion focused on Jesus and he claimed that the Torah had been abolished. Jesus in Matthew chapter 5 taught precisely the opposite.
‘Today salvation has come to this house’
Here is an incident I did not mention but which is highly relevant to the question of salvation in Islam and Christianity: the story of Zacchaeus the Tax Collector,
Luke 19 tells us:
‘Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’”
But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”
That very day salvation came to Zacchaeus’ house. Jesus didn’t tell the man that the only way salvation could come to his house was when Jesus died for his sins; Jesus did not mention ‘justification by faith alone’; made no mention of God pouring his wrath upon Jesus in the place of sinners to gain Zacchaeus’ salvation. No. Zacchaeus simply repents to God (not Jesus!), does restitution, and is reconciled to both God and man. Full stop. How wonderfully Jewish and how wonderfully Islamic!
All this teaching demonstrates beyond doubt that salvation was available before Jesus’ alleged vicarious atonement even happened. Not only did it happen without a human sacrifice, the ‘mechanism’ of salvation is explained by Jesus as repentance to God (note, not to himself!) and in certain cases restitution to the poor. Despite this being at the very heart of my presentation, Mr S Shamoun was strangely silent about this in his reply.
It appears to me that the evidence from authentic teaching of Jesus in the earlier gospels (and even they are demonstrably embellished and partially fictionalized) creates a fundamental problem for Mr S Shamoun. What problem is this? The irreconcilable contradiction in the NT itself between Jesus’ repeated teaching on sin, salvation and God on the one hand (as illustrated above and passim) and the teaching of a man who never met Jesus (Paul) who created a religion about Jesus which Mr S Shamoun now follows.
But I hear Mr S Shamoun’s objection, ‘What do you make of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper?’ I have three comments to make:
1) Let us look at the earliest account we have in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 11)
‘For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’
A close examination of Paul’s phrase ‘For I received from the Lord...’ suggests to me that he meant to say something original and not just to reproduce an often repeated story. When handing down church tradition transmitted to him by unknown people, such as Jesus’ alleged death, burial and later apparitions (1Cor 15:3-5), he prefaces his statement with ‘I deliver to you…. what I also received’. In the case of the eucharist, however, his source is said to be Jesus, which suggests that it was directly revealed to him. ‘I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you’. If I am correct in interpreting this passage, an account that is many years prior to the synoptic gospels, it may be the case that Paul’s wording may be the primary source for the NT formulation of the establishment of the Eucharist.
Put another way, there is a good chance that the eucharistic interpretation of the communal meal of the church was due to Paul, and that the authors of Mark, Matthew and especially Luke (who follows Paul most closely), introduced it into their respective accounts in the synoptic gospels.
2) Significant further evidence concerning the ‘Lords Supper’ is to be found in ‘The Didache’.
I invite you to watch this video first. I do not agree with all the assertions by the presenter but his discussion of the Didache is valuable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pRbuKDJhzU4
The Didache is a brief early Christian treatise dated by most scholars from the mid to late first century (see Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church article Didache). Thus this text is either contemporary with or even predates much of the New Testament itself!
Interestingly the work was considered by some of the Church Fathers to be part of the New Testament. In chapters 9 & 10 the Didache basically describes the same ritual as the one that took place in Corinth. But with some significant differences. There is no reference to the redemptive death of Christ, or remembrance, as formulated by Paul in 1 Cor 11! Clearly there were 1st century Christians who had a quite different understanding of the Lord’s Supper than Paul.
3) A third piece of evidence is to be found in Acts 3:1,
‘One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer – at three in the afternoon.’
So according to Acts, the first disciples seem to have attended the Temple and to have participated in the Temple cult: the clear implication of Acts 3:1 is that the first followers of Jesus observed the traditional hours of prayer. The hour of prayer was also the hour of Sacrifice: Psalm 141: 2 and Luke 1:10 indicate that the offering of incense was seen as occasion for prayer, and the offering of incense was itself part of the morning and evening sacrificial ritual. Also Acts 21:24 tells us that the Jerusalem believers expected Paul to demonstrate his loyalty to the Temple by observing the prescribed purificatory rituals. The implication is clear: that the Jerusalem followers did not regard Jesus’ alleged death as an atoning sacrifice, let alone as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
Regarding the teaching of the other NT epistles I must confess to finding myself with a further problem. There are many good reasons for entertaining serious doubts about the authenticity of many letters attributed to Paul, John and Peter. Moderate mainstream biblical scholarship has serious reservations about the authenticity and apostolicity of 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Jude, 1,2, & 3 John, and 1&2 Peter. Many in the early church did not accept the authenticity of these books either (see Eusebius’ 4th century work Ecclesiastical History).
So, no one can say with any certainty what Peter and John and really thought on any given subject. Sadly we cannot rule out the possibly we are reading the words of a forgery. And forgeries (then as now) are deliberate intentions to deceive the readership. And who would wish to base their faith on carefully crafted deceptions?
Even the most respected conservative Evangelical NT scholars such as Michael Licona recently (and bravely) wrote
“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend”
Licona continued,
“there is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios).”
Then he goes on to say that
“Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins”
Licona’s assessment of the gospel’s genre is clearly based on a thorough acquaintance with the subject. For further scholarly analysis I recommend to Mr S Shamoun the standard critical introduction to the gospel’s genre:
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
by Rev Richard A. Burridge, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Kings College, London. Burridge would certainly agree with Licona’s conclusions.
In mentioning these serious problems, well known to mainstream scholars for over a century now, I do not intend to destroy the faith of Mr S Shamoun. No. I simply invite him to become acquainted with responsible (and mostly Christian!) New Testament scholarship. If he wishes to enter into the fascinating world of historical and literary scholarship he is welcome to view the Recommended Reading List on my blog for examples of standard undergraduate texts.
I am sure that if he chooses to take this step he will find the adventure liberating and disturbing but above all spiritually advantageous.
——————————————
A few words regarding Mr S Shamoun’s article:
Islam’s Morally Grotesque Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.
A verse of Quran says: ‘And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And if a heavily laden soul calls [another] to [carry some of] its load, nothing of it will be carried, even if he should be a close relative. You can only warn those who fear their Lord unseen and have established prayer. And whoever purifies himself only purifies himself for [the benefit of] his soul. And to God is the [final] destination’ (Surah Fatir 35:18)
The hadiths mentioned from Sahih Muslim basically mean: for every Muslim that is saved from hell BY ALLAH’s FORGIVENESS, there is a truth-rejecting Christian or Jew that will go to hell. There is no mention of atonement or substitution, merely a statement of proportionality. Consider: were these particular Kafir Jews and Christians going to heaven before sin-laden Muslims were saved from hell? The answer is No. As we all know, the heaven bound Jews and Christians are mentioned in the Quran, ‘Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good – they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve [on the day of judgement]‘. [5.69]
The only possible explanation for the hadith using the phrase ‘rescue’, would be in the figurative sense, in that when two people have been given the same job, and one person who did better than the other is saved, and the other is punished, it is as if one has ‘rescued’ the other from that punishment, even though each was judged on their own merits.
Finally, even if there exists any Sahih hadith (a narration whose narrators appear reliable) and whose interpretation is clear, but is not reconcilable with the Quran, the Islamic Scholars have agreed that it is thrown out of consideration. This is because the Islamic scholars of knowledge have consistently taught “Khabr ul Ahad la yufid ul ilm” – single chain narrations do not benefit [certain] knowledge. This is because the human transmission of them passes through too few narration chains to render them free from error. Hadith scholars automatically classify such hadith narrations as ‘Shadh’ (odd), and cannot be used for any creedal formulations in Islam (for more information, please refer to Imam Shafi’is book ‘Al-Risala’, chapter on ‘Khabr ul Wahid’ [Single chain narrations]).
Part 2 follows inshallah…
How Good Logic Leads to Good Theology
Posted: December 22, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, The Bible 14 Comments »“God the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see”
(1 Timothy 6 vv. 15-16).
Paul says that God alone is immortal. Immortal means he does not die. Check the dictionary. Therefore, anyone who believes that Jesus died cannot believe that Jesus is God. Such a belief would contradict what Paul said here. Furthermore, to say that God died is a blasphemy against God. Who would run the world if God died? Paul believed that God does not die.
Paul also said in that passage that God dwells in unapproachable light — that no one has seen God or can see him. Paul knew that many thousands of people had seen Jesus. Yet Paul can say that no one has seen God because Paul was sure that Jesus is not God.
For unto us a Child is born
Posted: December 20, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Dawah 1 Comment »-
Who is this really describing?
It’s Christmas time and Trinitarian Christians are proclaiming the birth of God as the baby Jesus 2000 years ago. Their favorite Biblical prophecy concerning this event is Isaiah 9:5-6. How amazing that Isaiah speaks so clearly about Jesus! – and how baffling that Jews and Muslims remain so stubborn in their rejection of a divine Messiah!
But wait a minute – let us revisit this famous passage which will be read out in churches all over the world this week.
The Jewish Study Bible translates the passage thus:
For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
“The Mighty God is planing grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler” -
In token of abundant authority
And of peace without limit
Upon David’s throne and kingdom,
That it may be firmly established
In justice and in equity
Now and evermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts
Shall bring this to pass.
(Isaiah 9:5-6)
The scholarly commentary informs us:
“The Mighty God…ruler”:
‘This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Hebrew means ”The LORD saves; Hezekiah, “The LORD strengthens”; in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa.39.1) means “the god Marduk has provided an heir.” These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship.
Similarly, the name given to the child in this verse does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse.’
So it seems that this passage is not a prediction about God becoming a man after all. In its historical context the verses probably refer to Ahaz’s son Hezekiah. This seems to be the consensus of modern scholars.
The Jewish Study Bible is published by Oxford University Press. This magisterial text is a must for those involved in Dawah.
Happy holidays!
Ineffectual Grace: A Reply to John Samson
Posted: December 19, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christian extremism, Christianity | Tags: christianity 24 Comments »Ineffectual Grace
John Samson is a Christian minister in Arizona, USA.
After MDI’s recent successful debate at the London Central Mosque between Rev Dr Steve Latham and myself on the subject of Salvation in Islam and Christianity I was interested to read how Christians felt about the arguments I used. Did they have any responses to my challenge? So naturally I was pleased to discover that a certain John Samson had put up parts 1 & 2 of my debate on his website called Effectual Grace. He wrote, ‘This very useful debate on the subject of “salvation” took place at the prestigious Regents Park Central Mosque in London, England on December 4th, 2011′.
By way of introducing myself to him I posted this comment on his website:
Hi John, I’m glad you liked the debate. Can I ask how you thought it went and do you have any observations about the Islamic position on salvation I defended?
regards
Paul Williams
He replied:
Hi Paul,
I am always amazed to watch these interactions, knowing that such a debate could never take place in a Muslim ruled country. It is only the freedom of the west that would allow such a debate. I thought the debate allowed the two sides to articulate their positions very well.
My observations? I listened intently to all you had to say. I thought you spoke very well to present the Muslim side but in all honesty was disappointed that you suggested Paul and Jesus were at odds regarding salvation, stemming from the implicit notion that because Paul never met Jesus, he had a different gospel. Yet there is very little in Paul that is not also in Peter and John and so on… Peter wrote “we are not redeemed by silver and gold but by the precious blood of Christ..” etc. That sounds very Pauline to me… and it also sounds very Christlike too Matthew 26: 26-28 “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
This would summarize my own position: “Every verse of all four Gospels is meant by the authors to be read in the shadow of the cross. When we start reading one of the Gospels, we already know how it ends—the death and resurrection of Jesus as a substitute for our sins (Mark 10:45; Matthew 26:28)—and we should have that ending in mind with every verse that we read. And this is exactly what each of the Gospels intends. For example, Luke begins his story with the great word from the angel to the shepherds, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10). And Luke does not leave us wondering how Jesus would be a Savior. He connects the suffering and death of Jesus to the New Covenant of forgiveness—“This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). And the New Covenant promises forgiveness for sins: “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). So, according to Luke’s portrait of Jesus the blood of Jesus is being shed for the forgiveness of sins.”
May I ask you to take a look at this Paul? It is a teaching by Dr. John Piper at a Pastor’s Conference entitled “Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?” http://vimeo.com/10951333
Regards,
John
I was greatly encouraged to find a Christian who had taken the trouble to watch my debate and offer his observations, however critical. So in reply I posted this comment on his website:
John, I want to thank you for your comprehensive feedback. All your points can be effectively countered, but at this point to keep this simple and manageable I want to focus on the key point as I see it. You outline your argument thus:
‘This would summarize my own position: “Every verse of all four Gospels is meant by the authors to be read in the shadow of the cross. When we start reading one of the Gospels, we already know how it ends—the death and resurrection of Jesus as a substitute for our sins (Mark 10:45; Matthew 26:28)—and we should have that ending in mind with every verse that we read. And this is exactly what each of the Gospels intends.’
And I think scholars of redaction criticism would agree with you whole heartedly. But, they would also point out that the evangelists crafting of the material at their disposal and their incorporating myths and legends into the gospels precludes us from simply reading off the the surface of the text and drawing uncritical conclusions.
As Evangelical Professor Michael Licona states: “It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend”
Licona continued, “there is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios).” Then he goes on to say that “Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins”
Licona’s assessment of the gospel’s genre is clearly based on a thorough acquaintance with the subject. For further scholarly analysis I recommend the standard critical introduction to the gospel’s genre:
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Rev Richard A. Burridge, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Kings College, London. Burridge would certainly agree with Licona’s conclusions.
But turning from the evangelists own telling of the story to the historical Jesus and his teaching which is probably better preserved in the gospel of Mark and Q (than in the highly interpreted gospel of John), what do we read?
How is a human being to attain eternal life, that is, how are we to be saved? Interestingly, Jesus was asked this very question and you can read his answer in the gospel according to Mark chapter 10. Here is the story:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Note that Jesus does not tell the man that he must put his faith in Jesus, or that salvation is solely dependent on Jesus dying to atone for his sins. No. As a humble Jew Jesus recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; that to sincerely obey the commands of the Torah is the main road to salvation, but in this individual’s case he lacked just one thing – he needed to give away his wealth to the poor and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven. Note carefully the sequence.
That this passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels) is evident from the changes they made to Jesus’ words by removing his denial that he is good
Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Instead of Mark’s original ‘why do you call me good?’)
By way of contrast let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question about salvation in Romans 10:9:
‘If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved’
The differences are startling. As we have seen, Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah and giving to the poor. As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus taught that faithfulness to God is to be expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah. Paul’s religion focused on Jesus and he claimed that the Torah had been abolished. Jesus in Matthew chapter 5 taught precisely the opposite.
One last point – I want to invite you to an imaginative reconstruction of the Mark 10 story. In my version the story continues…. at this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. But later that evening he had a change of heart and said to himself ‘Jesus’ offer of eternal life and is just so amazing that I will give all my wealth to the poor after all. Jesus said if I did this I would have treasure in heaven.’ So the next day he was true to his word and sold his possessions and gave all his money to the poor. That night the man died quietly in his sleep.
Did he go to heaven?
About 10 minutes after I posted this comment on his site I discovered that Samson had deleted the 2 videos of the debate, and deleted all my comments and his reply. Shortly after that I received the following email from Samson:
Paul,
I dont appreciate your rhetoric at all. Quoting a scholar is not proof of anything.
Secondly, if he does not believe the Bible is God’s word, or believes parts of the Gospels are myths and legends, how can he in any way be an Evangelical? You say he is, I sure dont.
I could quote many scholars who would be more than happy to defend the inspiration and reliability of the Bible, both of its text and of its message, my friend, Dr. James White being one of them.
As I have reflected more on the debate, I feel Steve let the Christian side down badly by over stepping the boundaries of orthodoxy. Therefore after some thought, I no longer feel the debate is useful for people so have removed the debate from my blog. There are other debates I would recommend folk to watch which at least gives the orthodox Christian view. With all due respect to Steve, he did not provide that (in my opinion).
You also miss the entire point of Mark 10 - see here: http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/sermons/Derek’s_SERMONS/Mark/17b%20mark_10.17to31.htm
I do not think further discussion would be profitable.
John
This is most peculiar behavior. The Muslim Debate Initiative has a track record of debating Christians in a fair, courteous and intellectually rigorous manner. Samson was happy to post the “very useful” MDI video on his site having watched it first. He replied to my request for comments, but then apparently threw a tantrum when I had the temerity to counter his arguments in what I hope was a scholarly manner. Why is he not willing to defend his version of ‘orthodox Christianity’ against Muslim critique?
Furthermore he speaks most unfairly and inaccurately about the Rev Dr Steve Latham’s supposed theological ‘unorthodoxy’. Steve, who has a PhD in Christian theology from the prestigious Kings College here in London, holds to the central doctrines of Evangelicalism as understood by evangelical Baptists in the UK and the US. Could it be that Samson, an erstwhile Englishman, has not only taken up residence in America but inculcated the worse accesses of Christian fundamentalism which so plague that otherwise beautiful country? I hope not.
It is a shame that his only response to a reasoned Muslim challenge to his strict Calvinist Christian theology is censorship and apparently a fit of pique.
The Inhabitants of Hell meet the Mercy of God
Posted: December 17, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Islam 1 Comment »-
The Choice
Abu Hurayrah related that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “On the Day of Resurrection, a caller will cry out, ‘Let every people follow what they worshiped!’ They will be asked, ‘Is there a sign between you and Him that will let you know Him?’ They will say, ‘Yes!’ So their legs will be uncovered and Allah will give permission to all those who used to prostrate to Him by their own free will to prostrate. And Allah will make those who used to prostrate only to be seen by others or to ward off criticism unable to prostrate. Their backs will be made as a stiff single part, so whenever they try to prostrate, they topple on their backsides.
Then they will come upon the bridge over Hell and intercession will begin. They will murmur, “O Allah, bring them to safety! Bring them safety!’ And the faithful ones will pass over the bridge in a wink of an eye. Others will pass like lightening, others like the wind, others like birds, others like strong horses. Some will cross over whole and safe, others will be sent across bruised, while others will be flung into the fire of Gehenna. By the One who holds my soul in His hand, none of you will be more vehement in pleading for justice than the faithful ones will at that time for their brothers who are in the fire. They will say, ‘Our Lord, they fasted with us! They prayed with us! They made pilgrimage with us!’ He will say to them, ‘Bring out of it all the ones that you know.’ So their forms will be forbidden to the fire as they enter it and they will bring out many people, until they say, ‘Our Sustainer none are left of those You have commanded us to extract.’ Then He will say to them, “Go back and bring out whoever you find that has a dinar’s worth of goodness in them.’ And they will bring out many people. And He will say to them, ‘Go back and bring out whoever you find that has half a dinar’s worth of goodness in them.’ And they will bring out many people. Then He will say o them, ‘Go back again and bring out whoever you find who has an atom’s weight of goodness in them.’ And they will bring out many people. And this will go on till they say to Him, ‘Our Lord, we have left no one in it who has any trace of goodness in them.’
Allah will then declare, ‘The angels have interceded, and the prophets have interceded, and the faithful have interceded. Only the Most Merciful of those who show mercy (Arhamur-Rahimin) is left to intercede!’ And He will bring out with His grasp the people who have never done any good and He will throw them into a river at the mouth of Paradise called the River of Life and they will emerge from it like pearls. When the people of Paradise see them, they will know them, ‘These are Emancipated of God. He has made them enter Paradise without any of their own actions, and without any goodness that they offered!’ And God will say to them, ‘Enter Paradise! What you have seen is yours.’ They will say, ‘Our Sustainer, You have given us what You have not given anyone of the worlds!’ He will say ‘I have for you what is even better then this.’ They will ask, ‘O Our Sustainer, what could be better than this?’ He will say, ‘My contentment with you, for I shall not be displeased with you after this ever again.’”
(Bukhari & Muslim)
(I wish I had had the time to read out this wonderful hadith during my recent debate!)
Part 2 of our MDI debate at London Central Mosque: Salvation in Christianity and Islam
Posted: December 14, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Debates, Islam, The Bible, Videos 3 Comments »Part 2 is now out. It records the rebuttals and the Q & A session.
It took place at the prestigious London Central Mosque on 4th December 2011.
Speakers:
Rev Dr Steve Latham, Director for Continuing Ministerial Development at Spurgeons College, London (a Christian Seminary)
Paul Williams, Director of Muslim Debate Initiative
In my view this was an excellent debate and showcased how MDI hosts, moderates and conducts its debates in a respectful and intellectually rigorous manner.
Recent MDI debate at London Central Mosque: Salvation in Christianity and Islam
Posted: December 13, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam, MDI, Videos 6 Comments »Part 1 has just come out of production, so here is the film of my debate with the pastor of the Church where I became a born-again Evangelical Christian.
It took place at the prestigious London Central Mosque on 4th December 2011. We discussed the following questions (and a lot more!)
How are we saved? How does God save mankind from the consequences of their evils acts? Can we ever be forgiven? How do we obtain this forgiveness from God? Do we need the sacrifice of Jesus, or is striving in good actions with repentance enough? What faith do we need? Did Jesus teach atonement of our sins through his blood, or by faith and good actions alone?
Speakers:
Rev Dr Steve Latham, Director for Continuing Ministerial Development at Spurgeons College, London (a Christian Seminary)
Paul Williams, Director of Muslim Debate Initiative
In my view this was an excellent debate and showcased how MDI hosts, moderates and conducts its debates in a respectful and intellectually rigorous manner.
My Review of last nights debate at SOAS
Posted: December 10, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams 4 Comments »MDI speaker Sami Zaatari made a joint presentation with Christian politician Alan Craig on what members of the Muslim/Christian communities should know about the other’s beliefs at the University of London, SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) yesterday evening.
In my review I want to focus on three arguments put forward by Alan Craig last night.
In the context of an impassioned presentation which was really his own story about how he became a Christian and how central Jesus is in his life, he argued the following:
1) That “only through Jesus sacrificial death on the cross can humanity find forgiveness for all its sins”. This is the standard Christian position. But, oddly, this is not the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
During the Q&A I read Mark 1 to Craig:
‘And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.’
I pointed out that this ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ took place before Jesus’ ministry had even begun and there is the clear implication that those who confessed their sins did receive forgiveness by God.
Craig’s answer to me was that God was outside time, so Jesus’ death on the cross had a timeless effect on the past, present and future forgiveness of sins, so even those who came before Jesus received forgiveness through the cross. But this somewhat extravagant metaphysical claim has some unacceptable consequences.
John the baptist in his ministry and Jesus in his ministry never taught that forgiveness of sins was conditional on the latter dying on the cross for them. Why this curious omission? Consider the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples:
‘This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy.
May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven.
Give us today the food we need
and forgive us our sins,
as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
And don’t let us yield to temptation,
but rescue us from the evil one.
If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.’
Matthew 5: 9-14
So according to Craig, this prayer is quite misleading, for this simple (and typically Jewish) petition to God for forgiveness is not going to be answered in those terms, but will be rerouted via Jesus’ sacrificial death to become effective! But why was Jesus so coy about the real mechanism for the forgiveness of sins? Is Craig’s hypothesis at all plausible? Craig will need to ponder this question further.
2) He asserted that the whole Bible is inspired by God and is “perfect”. During the Q & A he seemed to brush off as a minor irrelevance criticism from an audience member that as Christians in the early church and even today are still disunited about which books constitute the Bible, how can he speak of a perfect and inspired book? To add to this significant point I added my own: The Bible in places explicitly denies that it is the Word of God. I cited Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (7:12)
‘To the rest I say this I, not the Lord: If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.’
Craig’s response to this was to claim that for Christians Jesus himself was the ‘Word of God’. Craig thereby implicitly conceded my point that not all of the Bible can be claimed to be the Word of God. There are other passages I could have cited to make the same point, and contrary to Christian apologetics, the Bible as such nowhere claims to be the Word of God or even inspired (compare the Qur’anic claim concerning its own origin).
3) Craig asserted at the beginning of his presentation that in Jesus of Nazareth,
“all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”
(citing the deutero-Pauline Letter to the Colossians, 1:19).
Yet during Q & A when Craig was reminded that Jesus was ignorant of certain facts such as the date of his return (information known only to God – see Mark 13:32) Craig asserted that Jesus as the incarnate deity had “imperfect knowledge” of future events. So which is it to be? Is Craig going to simultaneously assert that Jesus was God in his fullness and yet was God with reduced powers and attributes, such that God was ignorant of certain facts and could even die (despite the clear scriptural teaching that God is immortal, eternal)? Clearly there is much muddled thinking here.
Craig told us that as a businessman he was extremely successful, traveling the world on Concorde and employing an army of factory workers. This was all very impressive. But, I am sad to say, his grasp of the Bible and Christian theology struck this reviewer at least as superficial and muddled. Sami Zaatari, in contrast, had a good grasp of the Bible and the Quran and left the impression that Islam is far more credible as a way of salvation and a sure path to God.
—————————————————————————————————
Yesterday, a Muslim friend emailed me about the Christian claim he so often hears that the Bible is ‘the word of God’. I replied:
the usual Christian argument is to quote 2 Timothy 3:16 as a defence of the Bible’s own claim to be the Word of God. But there are 3 problems with this:
i) if you read this verse in its context the author is clearly referring to the Old Testament not the New Testament
ii) then as now there are different canons of scripture (the list of books that make up the Bible). The diaspora Jews at the time of Paul used a longer Greek translation but the Palestinian Jews used a shorter version which omitted key books. Which is the real Bible?
iii) nearly all NT scholars believe that 2 Timothy is a forgery, ie the letter claims to be by Paul but is really by someone else pretending to be by him. If this is correct, then Christians are putting their trust in the testimony of a forged book to support their truth claims about the Bible!
hope this helps…
Judging by the Injil
Posted: November 27, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam 5 Comments »© Paul Williams June 2011
The U.S.A today has seen a sharp rise in incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim feeling. Expressions of such feeling have been noticeable in Mosque bombings, arson, violence towards Muslims, discrimination at work, and even murder. The sources of such negative feelings come from a number of traditionally intolerant sources; the right-wing neo-conservatives, radicals, white supremacists, and fundamentalist Christians.
In their expressions of hate towards Muslims, these groups invoke alarmist, paranoid conspiracy-theory narratives of ‘Islamisation of the USA’ or ‘stealth Jihad’ by what amounts to only 2% of the population.
Militant fundamentalist Christians, have added a further layer to this narrative, and combined an aggressive concept of Christian proselytisation , to wage ‘Spiritual warfare’ on non-believers (which is a cross between the Crusades and Psy-Ops worthy of a Cold war regime). This usually involves a number of methods, ranging from publishing aggressive and skewed articles online, to video propaganda, and disturbing non-Christian community events with loud speakers, large insulting signs and scattering leaflets amongst crowds of ‘heathens’.
Although we have come to hear of the more infamous groups of militant Christians, such as Westboro Baptist Church, others, of a more obscure variety exist, such as Acts 17 Ministries – infamous for yearly disrupting the Arab cultural festival in Dearborn Michigan. This year, they intent to mass distributed a number of anti-Islamic propaganda, focusing on a number of Islamic theological beliefs; in an attempt to ‘counter the spread of Sharia law’.
One such article they intend to distribute, concerns attacking the Islamic belief that Jesus (a.s) is not divine. In order to achieve this, they resort to straw manning the interpretation of Quranic quotes which tell Christians to study their own Bible to see the truth of Islam. The militant Christians claim that it is the Bible itself which ‘clearly’ and ‘uncontrovertibly ‘proves’ the divinity of Jesus, and therefore Islam is wrong in it’s claims, and Muhammed (saw) is a false prophet.
David Wood of Acts 17 Ministries wrote and produced this little pamphlet. You can read it here. Let’s scratch the surface, and put this argument to the test…
God in his Word, the Holy Quran ( 5:46-47), tells us that:
‘And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those earlier prophets, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious.’
‘Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein: for they who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!’
Furthermore we read in Quran 3:3-4:
Step by step has He bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, setting forth the truth which confirms whatever there still remains of earlier revelations: for it is He who has bestowed from on high the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, as a guidance unto mankind, and it is He who has bestowed upon man the standard by which to discern the true from the false.
Behold, as for those who are bent on denying God’s messages – grievous suffering awaits them: for God is almighty, an avenger of evil.
It is important to bear in mind that the Gospel frequently mentioned in the Qur’an is not identical with what is known today as the Four Gospels, but refers to an original, since lost, revelation bestowed upon Jesus and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name of Evangelion (“Glad Tidings”), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based. It was probably the source from which the Synoptic Gospels derived much of their material and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus. The fact of its having been lost and forgotten is alluded to in the Qur’an in 5:14
Quran 5:14:
And likewise, from those who say, “Behold, we are Christians.” We have accepted a solemn pledge: and they, too, have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind – wherefore We have given rise among them to enmity and hatred, to last until Resurrection Day and in time God will cause them to understand what they have contrived.
Thus the Qur’an elliptically rejects the Christian’s claim of being true followers of Jesus: for, by wrongfully elevating him to the status of divinity they have denied the very essence of his message.
Furthermore, by their going astray from the genuine teachings of Jesus – and thus from true faith in God – is the innermost cause of the enmity and hatred which has so often set the so-called Christian nations against one another and led to unceasing wars and mutual persecution.
So in light of this Quranic teaching Muslims are entirely justified in asking Christians ‘What did Jesus say about himself?’ ‘Where did Jesus claim to be God?’
Our Early Sources of Information about Jesus
Most Christians who are not familiar with biblical scholarship probably think that knowing about the historical Jesus is a relatively straightforward matter. We have four gospels in the New Testament, so to know what Jesus said and did we should read the gospels. So what is the problem?
The problem in part is that the gospels are full of discrepancies and were written decades after Jesus’ ministry by authors who had not themselves witnessed any of the events of Jesus’ life.
But it gets worse. For honest readers notice not just the occasional contradiction or error in the New Testament; there are the existence of forgeries claiming apostolic authorship and containing fake eye-witness testimony (such as the notorious Second Letter of ‘Peter’); the troubling absence of the doctrine of the Trinity; the worrying interpolations/corruptions that have been discovered at crucial points in the NT: the so-called ‘Johannine Comma’ of 1 John 5:7 is clearly Trinitarian in teaching but is known to be a much later insertion by a Christian scribe; the absence of any resurrection appearances in the earliest gospel of Mark (check it out!); the fabrication of stories about Jesus (the famous story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was not part of the gospel but added much later by an unknown scribe). All these facts are understandably deeply worrying for Christians, for how do we really know what is authentic and what is the inauthentic material in the NT? And to make matters worse – what about the unknown interpolations and corruptions that probably exist but still lie undetected?
But surely the most troubling phenomenon in the New Testament must be the difference between the Synoptic gospels and John. Most Christians are serenely unaware of the problem because they are not taught to notice what is evident to all serious students of the Bible.
Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
In John, Jesus speaks with an unclouded consciousness of a divine existence with God from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended as a historical portrayal, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the Christological claims of John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It is hardly likely.
Consider the following
James D. G. Dunn, one of the leading moderate New Testament scholars around and no “anti-supernatural liberal,” writes:
Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics. It is worth noting briefly the factors which have been considered of enduring significance on this point. One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking (much more discursive and theological, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptics). As Strauss had already pointed out, this style is consistent, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of the Baptist, as indeed of 1 John. The inference is inescapable that the style is that of the Evangelist rather than that of Jesus. Probably most important of all, in the Synoptics Jesus’ principal theme is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom hardly features and the discourses are largely vehicles for expressing Jesus’ self-consciousness and self-proclamation. Had the striking ‘I am’ self-assertions of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any Evangelist have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics do? On the whole, then, the position is unchanged: John’s Gospel cannot be regarded as a source for the life and teaching of Jesus of the same order as the Synoptics.
(James D. G. Dunn, Christianity In The Making Vol. 1, Jesus Remembered, 2003, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 165-166.)
Other conservative Christian scholars who have similar types of verdicts to offer regarding the historicity of the gospel of John include: Bruce Stein, Craig A Evans and Martin Hengel, to name a few.
So when we consider the synoptic gospels on the one hand and John’s gospel on the other, it is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents, and there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50 per cent of what he said and another one the other 50 per cent, with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years scholars have had to choose. They have almost unanimously, and I think entirely correctly, concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic gospels and that John represents an advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them.
So what did Jesus reportedly say of himself and the important question of eternal life in our earliest gospel?
Jesus in the Earliest Gospel
Mark chapter 10 reads:
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money* to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
I invite you to consider the following
1) Jesus, as a humble Jew, denies that goodness comes from himself: only God is good. Ergo, Jesus is making clear that he is not God.
2) According to Jesus we are saved by obeying the commandments of God (note the striking contrast to Paul’s gospel about Jesus)
3) But in this particular encounter the man lacked one thing (only) that blocked him from eternal life: his riches. Jesus advises him to ’go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven’ so the man will receive his heavenly reward as a result of selling his possessions. After that, he is invited to follow Jesus. Note carefully the sequence.
4) This passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels) who changed Jesus words to remove Jesus’ denial that he is good/God:
Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)
And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’
Now let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question in Romans 10:9:
If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
The differences are startling. Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah. As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus sees his faithfulness to God expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah.
Mark 2:5-7 and the forgiveness of sins
The point can be easily missed. At first the issue seems to be Christological – ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?; ‘…that you might know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…‘ (2.7,10). But that is a dubious interpretation. What Jesus actually says is, ‘Your sins are forgiven‘ – something the priest could say in the Temple to everyone who had brought a sin offering. Note too that the phrase ‘the Son of Man‘ evokes no comment, it was clearly not seen as a claim to exulted or divine status by the crowd (indeed in Aramaic idiom the phrase means ‘man’). In the parallel story in Matt 9.8 the crowd ‘glorified God who had given such authority to men’.
Furthermore, John the Baptist presumably pronounced sins forgiven (see Mark 1.4/Luke 3.3) without apparently provoking any accusation of breaching the divine prerogative. Also in the Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran, Nabonidus says ‘an exorcist pardoned my sins’, where human mediation of divine forgiveness is clearly implied (4QprNab4).
The gospels also narrate that the disciples were given authority to forgive the sins of others – see Matthew 16.19; 18.18 and John 20.23 (‘if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’)
The Light
My comments re the historical problems surrounding the gospel of John apply to all David Wood’s quotes from that gospel. I will not repeat them here. But let us not forget that according to Matthew 5 Jesus taught his disciples,
“You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
So the true followers of Jesus are light to the world - just as Jesus was.
The Final Judge
David Wood is correct to say that only God will be the Judge on the Day of Judgment but is wrong to draw the conclusion that Jesus was therefore God. That is not how the apostles understood Jesus’ role and status. If we survey the apostles teaching in Acts (assuming for the sake of argument its’ authenticity) we read in Peter’s very first sermon the following:
“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, was a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know” Acts 2:22
‘Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah’ Acts 2:36
And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. Acts 4:22
He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. Acts 10:42
Now admittedly this is not Islamic teaching but it suggests that Jesus was a man who:
i) did miracles by the power of God
ii) was made lord and messiah by God
iii) was believed to be the messiah by his first followers
iv) as a man was appointed to be judge of the living and the dead by God.
Nothing of Peter’s teaching in Acts suggests that Jesus was believed to be Yahweh or God Incarnate or the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus was a man, a servant like David and the Messiah.
So, in conclusion, we read the Word that God speaks to the Christians of the world, with a clear warning:
People of the book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’ – stop this, that is better for you – God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. (Qur’an, 4:171)
Jesus: Incarnate God, or Human Prophet? Sami Zaatari vs Michael Dantzie
Posted: November 25, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, MDI, Videos 5 Comments »Watch this highly controversial, chaotic, funny yet successful debate, at the University of Sussex, 10th November 2011.
Is Mohammad (pbuh) Deified? [Part - 1]
Posted: November 24, 2011 Filed under: Question Mark 2 Comments »Is Mohammad (pbuh) Deified?
More refutations to the cliché hoax of Mohammad’s (pbuh) deification
Part – 1
Acknowledgment: We acknowledge inputs from Asadullah Mallick rendered towards the formation of this paper. May Allah (SWT) bless him.
Introduction
Islamic Scriptures makes it abundantly clear that in the house of Islam, it is only Allah (SWT) who is worthy of any kind of worship:
“(It teacheth) that ye should worship none but Allah. (Say:) “Verily I am (sent) unto you from Him to warn and to bring glad tidings: (Qur’an 11:2)
“Say: “O ye men! if ye are in doubt as to my religion (behold!) I worship not what ye worship other than Allah But I worship Allah Who will take your souls (at death): I am commanded to be (in the ranks) of the Believers. (Qur’an 10:104)
“If not Him ye worship nothing but names which ye have named ye and your fathers for which Allah hath sent you no authority: the Command is for none but Allah: He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him: that is the right religion but Most men understand not…(Qur’an 12:40)
“Those to whom We have given the Book rejoice at what hath been revealed unto thee: but there are among the clans those who reject a part thereof. Say: “I am commanded to worship Allah and not to join partners with Him. Unto Him do I call and unto Him is my return.” (Qur’an 13:36)
“Verily those whom ye call upon besides Allah are servants like unto you: Call upon them, and let them listen to your prayer, if ye are (indeed) truthful!” (Qur’an 7:194)
The Prophetic Hadith also provides the same message of worshipping Allah (SWT) alone:
“Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, “Whoever said “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of a barley grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of a wheat grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of an atom will be taken out of Hell.” (Bukhari, Book 1, Volume 2, Hadith 42)
The Quran, Timothy J. Winter (Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad), 17/2/11
Posted: November 21, 2011 Filed under: Islam, Videos Leave a comment »Cambridge University Islamic Society’s Experience Islam Week 2011: Fear and hope; peace and war; transcendence and immanence: an insight into the nature of the Muslim Holy Book.
The ‘Problematic Age’ of Aisha
Posted: November 19, 2011 Filed under: Dawah 1 Comment »The age of Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, when she married the Prophet Muhammad is something that has only recently become controversial. The traditional account is that the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old, which naturally appears strange, if not uncomfortable, to many in a modern, western context. Many have gone so far as to stir up despicable sexual misconduct charges against the Prophet, with even some recent Muslims (of varying levels of intellectuality, motivations and scholarly qualifications) revisiting the sources and reinterpreting the traditionally adduced narrations, to suggest that Aisha may actually have been older, even though there are four Ahadith in al-Bukhari and three in Muslim clearly stating that Aisha reached puberty at nine years old when her marriage was subsequently consummated with the Prophet.
The first most important point to note is that the controversy is a relatively recent one. The Prophet’s own contemporaries took no issue with the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha; it was not problematic in their eyes as puberty indicated maturity and maturity meant readiness for marriage. This includes both his disbeliever antagonists and his believing followers. Certainly, his antagonists were ever eager to discredit him, and the Qur’an itself records details of this. They accused him of being a sorcerer, a madman or a soothsayer. They objected to his marriage to Zaynab, remonstrating that (according to pre-Islamic Arab culture) a man may not marry the divorcee of his adopted son just as he may not marry the divorcee of his biological son. Yet they did not attempt to discredit him on the basis of his marrying a girl much younger than him. Neither in the Qur’an nor in any historical source is there any mention of such an objection having been raised, despite the fact that these sources do mention numerous other strategies used by the Prophet’s opponents.
The reaction of Muhammad’s hostile contemporaries implies that it was acceptable, in 7th century Arab culture, for older men to marry younger girls (even as young as 9), and moreover that it was a practiced norm of the society at that time. Instead of sexual promiscuity such as ‘dating’, honorable families instead chose the more respectable avenue of marrying their children off at a young age.
The general character of the Prophet, and his marital history, speaks clearly against claims of sexual misconduct. His first marriage, at age 25, was to a widowed woman (Khadijah) who was 15 years his senior, and he remained in a happy and solid monogamous marriage to her for a quarter-century; the marriage ending only with Khadijah’s death, aged 65. It was only subsequent to her passing away, and often under specific circumstances that he married other women; with all of them being either widows or divorcees. Aisha was the third wife of the Prophet and the only virgin that he ever married.
Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha must be read in context to early Arab culture, and to avoid viewing the veritable tapestry of human culture, across space and time, through the colored lenses of contemporary, western culture. A slight familiarity with anthropology is sufficient to convince one that there has been, and still is, remarkable variety in human cultural practices and norms. For instance the Catholic Encyclopedia observes about the Virgin Mary that, “it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age.” In Shakespeare’s classic play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was only thirteen, yet her mother tells her that “ladies of esteem” younger than her are already mothers. According to the Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society, both Christian Canon law and European civil law considered seven years as the age of consent, but judges in medieval England would approve marriages based on mutual consent at ages even lower than 7. As recently as the nineteenth century, ages of consent of 13 to 14 were common in Western countries.
To conclude, Aisha’s biography attests to the fact that she had a wholesome upbringing and then blossomed to become a woman of high intellectual calibre, a poetess and a medical advisor. She had a sharp inquisitive mind and at times, as the Prophetic narrations show, would often daringly question the Noble Messenger.
She is one of the fore-ranking specialists in narrating from the Prophet. She was also a commentator on the Qur’an and knowledgeable in Islamic law. Much of this was due to her early marriage to Muhammad, which made her an eye witness to the personal details of his life. She became a beacon of knowledge for the succeeding generations and a role model for women for all times.
The Concept of God in Islam
Posted: November 14, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams Leave a comment »I will be reading from Gai Eaton’s beautifully written work The Concept of God in Islam at London Central Mosque’s Islamic Circle at 3pm next Saturday, 19th November 2011.
Location
The Islamic Cultural Centre and The London Central Mosque
146 Park Road,
London, United Kingdom, NW8 7RG
Room:
Regents Park Mosque Library, 1st floor
Review of the debate: a personal view
Posted: November 11, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams 8 Comments »Yesterdays debate (Sami verses Michael Dantzie, see article below) was part debate – part shambles. The moderator, ahem, did not moderate effectively, if at all; the Christian refused to answer questions put to him during the Q & A, and the whole thing descended into chaos. Definitely the funniest and worse debate I’ve ever attended.
But on the plus side:
Abdullah saved the day. He not only successfully persuaded the Christian to come along (when he got cold feet and wanted pulled out), he stepped in to moderate the proceedings when all order had collapsed, and ensured some decency to the event.
To say that Sami out-classed his opponent would be a massive understatement. All Michael could do was preach to the audience for 25 minutes and later he got increasingly annoyed with the audience when we had the temerity to question him on the coherence of his views.
Sami just sat there calmly watching the chaos unfold before him, occasionally refuting questions from the audience.
so:
Christian side 0/10
Muslim side 10/10
Decency and good order 0/10
Atheist-Muslim Debate: Do Morals require God? Abdullah al Andalusi vs Dr Stovold
Posted: November 8, 2011 Filed under: Atheism, Islam, MDI, Videos 1 Comment »Atheist-Muslim Debate: Do Morals require God? Abdullah al Andalusi vs Dr Stovold
The topic for discussion was “Do Morals Require God?” The speakers were:
Abdullah Al-Andalusi on behalf of MDI
Dr Robert Stovold on behalf of the NSS
The event took place on 12/05/10 University of Southampton, UK
Women & Islam: The rise and rise of the convert
Posted: November 6, 2011 Filed under: The News, Women in Islam 1 Comment »Three-quarters of Britons who become Muslims are female. Now a major new study has shed light on the difficulties they face in adjusting to their new life.
Record numbers of young, white British women are converting to Islam, yet many are reporting a lack of help as they get used to their new
religion, according to several surveys.
As Muslims celebrate the start of the religious holiday of Eid today and hundreds of thousands from around the world converge on Mecca for the haj, it emerged that of the 5,200 Britons who converted to Islam last year, more than half are white and 75 per cent of them women.
In the past 10 years some 100,000 British people have converted to Islam, of whom some three-quarters are women, according to the latest statistics. This is a significant increase on the 60,000 Britons in the previous decade, according to researchers based at Swansea University.
While the number of UK converts accelerates, many of the British women who adopt Islam say they have a daily struggle to assimilate their new beliefs within a wider culture that both implicitly and explicitly positions them as outsiders, regardless of their Western upbringing.
More than three-quarters told researchers they had experienced high levels of confusion after conversion, due to the conflicting ways Islam was presented to them. While other major religions have established programmes for guiding new believers through the rigours of their faith, Islam still lacks any such network, especially outside the Muslim hubs of major cities.
Many mosques still bar women from worship or provide scant resources for their needs, forcing them to rely on competing cultural and ideological interpretations within books or the internet for religious support.
A recent study of converts in Leicester, for example, found that 93 per cent of mosques in the region recognised they lacked services for new Muslims, yet only 7 per cent said they were making efforts to address the shortfall.
Many of the young women – the average age of conversion is 27 – are also coming to terms with experiences of discrimination for the first time, despite the only visible difference being a headscarf. Yet few find easy sanctuary within the established Muslim population, with the majority forming their closest bonds with fellow converts rather than born Muslims.
Kevin Brice, author of the Swansea study A Minority Within a Minority, said to be the most comprehensive study of British Muslim converts, added: “White Muslim converts are caught between two increasingly distant camps. Their best relationships remain with other converts, because of their shared experiences, while there is very little difference between the quality of their relationship with other Muslims or non-Muslims.
“My research also found converts came in two types: some are converts of convenience, who adopt the religion because of a life situation such as meeting a Muslim man, although the religion has little discernible impact on their day-to-day lives. For others it is a conversion of conviction where they feel a calling and embrace the religion robustly.
“That’s not to say the two are mutually exclusive – sometimes converts start out on their religious path through convenience and become converts of conviction later on.”
Another finding revealed by the Leicester study was that despite Western portraits of Islam casting it as oppressive to women, a quarter of female converts were attracted to the religion precisely because of thestatus it affords them.
Some analysts have argued that dizzying social and cultural upheavals in Britain over the past decades have meant that far from adopting an alien way of life, some female Muslim converts are re-embracing certain aspects of mid-20th-century Britain, such as rigid gender demarcation, rather than feeling expected to juggle career and family.
The first established Muslim communities started in Britain in the 1860s, when Yemani sailors and Somali labourers settled around the ports of London, Cardiff, Liverpool and Hull. Many married local women who converted to Islam, often suffering widespread discrimination as a result.
They also acted as a bridge between the two cultures, encouraging understanding among indigenous dwellers and helping to integrate the Muslim community they had joined. Today, there is growing recognition among community leaders that the latest generation of female converts has an equally vital role to play in fostering dialogue between an increasingly secular British majority and a minority religion, as misunderstood as it is vilified.
Kristiane Backer, 45
Television presenter and author, London
I converted to Islam in 1995 after Imran Khan introduced me to the faith. At the time I was a presenter for MTV. I used to have all the trappings of success, yet I felt an inner emptiness and somewhat dissatisfied in my life.
The entertainment industry is very much about “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”, which is the exact opposite to the more inward-oriented spiritual attitude of my new faith. My value system changed and God became the centre point of my life and what I was striving towards.
I recognise some new converts feel isolated but, despite there being even fewer resources when I converted than there are now, it isn’t so much an issue I’ve faced. I’ve always felt welcomed and embraced by the Muslims I met and developed a circle of friends and teachers. It helps living in London, because there is so much to engage in as part of the Muslim community. Yet, even in the capital you can be stared at on the Tube for wearing a headscarf. I usually don’t wear one in the West except when praying. I wear the scarf in front of my heart though!
I always try to explain to people that I’ve converted to Islam, not to any culture. Suppression of women, honour killings or forced marriages are all cultural aberrations, not Islamic ones. Islam is also about dignity and respect for yourself and your femininity. Even in the dating game, Muslim men are very respectful. Women are cherished as mothers, too – as a Muslim woman you are not expected to do it all.”
Amy Sall, 28
Retail assistant, Middlesbrough
I’d say I’m still a bit of a party animal – but I’m also a Muslim. I do go out on the town with the girls and I don’t normally wear my headscarf – I know I should do, but I like to do my hair and look nice! I know there are certain clothes I shouldn’t wear either, even things that just show off your arms, but I still do. My husband would like me to be a better Muslim – he thinks drinking is evil – so it does cause rows.
I haven’t worshipped in a mosque since I got married, I find it intimidating. I worry about doing something wrong; people whispering because they see my blonde hair and blue eyes. Middlesbrough is a difficult place to be a Muslim who isn’t Asian – you tend to be treated like an outsider. Once, I was out wearing my headscarf and a local man shouted abuse. It was weird because I’m white and he was white, but all he saw was the scarf, I suppose. It did make me angry. My family were surprisingly fine with me converting, probably because they thought it would rein me in from being a bit wild.
Nicola Penty-Alvarez, 26
Full-time mother, Uxbridge
I was always interested in philosophy and the meaning of life and when I came across Islam it all just clicked. In the space of four or five months I went from going to raves to wearing a headscarf, praying five times a day and generally being quite pious – I did occasionally smoke though.
I felt very welcomed into the Muslim community, but it was a mainly white convert community. My impression of the Asian community in west London was that women felt sidelined and were encouraged to stay at home and look after the men rather than attend mosque. I think this was more a cultural than religious thing, though.
Non-Muslims certainly treat you differently when you’re wearing a headscarf – they’re less friendly and as a smiley person I found that hard. After a year-and-a-half of being a Muslim I stopped. I remember the moment perfectly. I was in a beautiful mosque in Morocco praying beside an old lady and something just came over me. I thought: ‘What the hell am I doing? How have I got into this?’ It just suddenly didn’t feel right. Needless to say my husband, who was a fellow convert, wasn’t impressed. He remained devout and it put a lot of strain on our relationship. We split up, but are on amicable terms now. I’m not really in contact with the Muslim friends I made – we drifted apart.
I don’t regret the experience. There is so much that I learnt spiritually that I’ve kept and I haven’t gone back to my hard partying ways.
Donna Tunkara
Warehouse operative, Middlesbrough
I was a bit of a tearaway growing up – drinking, smoking, running away from home and being disrespectful to my parents. I converted 10 years ago because I met a Muslim man but I’ve probably become more devout than him.
Sometimes, I miss going shopping for clothes to hit the town and then going home and getting ready with my mates, having a laugh. The thing is no one is forcing me not to – it’s my choice.
It did come as a shock to my family, who are Christian. They’ve not rejected me, but they find it difficult to understand. I feel bad because I don’t now attend weddings, funerals or christenings because they’re often at pubs and clubs and I won’t step inside.
There needs to be more resources for women who convert. I know some mosques that won’t allow women in. But in the Koran there is an emphasis on women being educated. I’ve learnt about the religion through my husband’s family and books – if you want support you have to look for it. It’s taken time to regain an identity I’m comfortable with. Because I’m mixed race and a Muslim, people don’t see me as British – but what’s important is that I know who I am.
Christian Truth – Allahu Akbar!
Posted: November 4, 2011 Filed under: Fr Frank's Rants Leave a comment »God is great!
‘How strange”, my beloved disciple observed, ‘Libyans are shouting “God is great!” and yet the TV News keeps repeating that it is all about democracy.’
Allahu Akbar! Indeed. Libyans have been crying that out ever since the rebellion began. Allahu Akbar! You don’t need a BA in classical Arabic to know what it means. Three words in English, two in Arabic but the same meaning: God is great. Akbar is actually the comparative of kabir, ‘great’, it could just as well be translated as ‘greater’ or ‘the greatest’. A concise, effective statement of faith. Islam in a nutshell. There is nothing greater than God. Wow! The priest will sign up to that any time.
Allahu Akbar! God is great. The unnamed disciple is right. A peculiar deafness affects Western media. Not God, but Democracy is great, their reports imply. Why? Well, because they mouth the ‘D’ word endlessly, while suppressing the ‘G’ word. Surely a sign of verbal-cleansing paranoia.
A visitor from Mars might wonder: what is this thing ‘Democracy’? A craze? A disease? An actress? A pop star? Who is he/she? Invoked obsessively, all the time, surely she must be the name of some divinity, or of an awesome hero, perhaps, a saviour, a prophet or some metaphysical entity or a primal principle of cosmic importance, like gravity, or dark matter or…what?
God is great, the Libyans are shouting. Not, note, ‘democracy is great’. Not two mutually contradictory entities, perhaps, but they are not the same. Across the whole vast world of Islam, over a billion souls, echoes this cry: Allahu Akbar! The West does not want to hear it. As if it had an allergy, a disgust, a revulsion, a phobia at the words. (Europe is God-phobic, of course, that is the whole point.) The idea of God powering men’s lives, driving them to struggle, to fight, to risk their lives, to be wounded and even die…they can’t stand it. God is something Western man mentions only in swearing or in jokes. God, in public and polite society, is strictly off limits. Fanatics, lunatics, dangerous people talk of God. Sane, respectable folks do not…
God is great. But democracy, it seems, is Europe’s god. Better, Europe’s goddess. Not just a historical political system, with merits and demerits, like any other system. Like Moloch, like Melkart, the tribal deities of the Canaanites, democracy is now an absolute, unconditional, totalitarian idol. The new tauhid. Saudi Wahabis get a lot of flak for their presumed religious intolerance but so is the West fanatical, in its unreasoning devotion to this strange goddess – Democracy. The deity isn’t working, unfortunately. Europe’s economy and finance are crumbling, yet…more democracy is the cry! Like a drowning man calling out: ‘More water!’ – amazing!
‘Oh, I am so happy! Now we can say anything we like! We are free!’ a Libyan girl called out. That is something the priest understands. Freedom of speech: being free to speak your mind. Under Qaddafi that girl could not go the Tripoli souq and say: ‘Brother Leader stinks!’ Now she can. (Conversely, there are things Brits, supposedly free, are no longer allowed to say, even in universities. Do we need a revolution?) Freedom is the real McCoy. Freedom under God. Freedom to serve Him and to obey Him. That is the highest freedom: deluded atheists, pay heed!
The new Libyan leaders have learnt their lesson. They know the West craves oil, yes, but also expects democracy jabber so they, in their new suits and ties – thought reassuring after Qaddafi’s camp get-ups – comply. They are playing along. But the tough young chaps who have suffered and shed their blood in fighting the tyrant are shouting Allahu Akbar. They demand something different.
Qaddafi’s bloody end has shocked Westerners. He was not quite treated according the Geneva Conventions, no. Turning up their noses, they whisper: ‘What primitive, savage, violent people, these Muslims!’ (Raining bombs safely from on high is not quite nice either…) They forget the treatment Romanians, a Christian race, dealt to their own communist dictator, Ceausescu. Or what the devoutly Catholic Italians did to the body of Mussolini – something to put the darkest barbarians to shame. Or, a bit closer to home, what sections of the hyper-civilised (post-Christian, alas) British populace got up to this summer: rioting, looting and burning down town centres, presumably inspired by their marvellous goddess, Democracy.
God is great. Does that mean theocracy? It depends. In Europe that word has actually meant clergy rule. But not even the priest would wish this country to be ruled by the likes of Carey, Sentamu and Williams, hollow men who have driven a formerly great English Church to the brink of the grave. ‘God resigns from the C of E!’ a Private Eye joke ran. In truth, he might. Great God and puny, Laodicean Church are not compatible. Only, it is the Anglican Church which has let down Christ, not the other way around.
Allahu Akbar! Theocracy is a bogey conjured up by our God-phobes, like ‘Deluded’ Dawkins and his ilk. The world of Sunni Islam knows no such a word. The modern Church-State dichotomy is alien to Muslims but so it was to traditional Christendom. Although it is thanks to Cameron and Sarkozy that the Libyans threw off Qaddafi’s yoke, you can bet your boots that in religious fervour the new Libya will resemble neither France nor England. God swims in the Arab bloodstream, you cannot expel him out of it.
God is great but human beings are not. The West badly needs an awakening, a rebellion, a revolution. Even the lazy hippies camped around near St Paul’s Cathedral have sensed that. Not that they are fit to deliver it. They are theatre, not reality. Nor will Anglican clergy (laughter) imitate their counterparts in Iran. Nor liberation theology in South America. Priests like the Dominican Camilo Torres, who died wielding a submachine gun, fighting for justice, for the downtrodden – where are they?
‘You are not a revolutionary’ a real revolutionary, an expert in the human heart, told me long ago. Perhaps. But, along with the Libyan rebels, I can still shout out this – God is great!
Revd Frank Julian Gelli
Important news: The Muslim Debate Initiative
Posted: October 28, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, MDI Leave a comment »Salam
you may have noticed that this site now has a new button: Donate to Support MDI’s Work. PayPal is a safer, easier way to pay on-line without revealing one’s credit card number.
The Muslim Debate Initiative has started to raise funds on-line to grow and improve our work; purchase much needed new equipment; fund bigger – much bigger – events for Dawah; produce cutting edge research; and encourage and stage open debates between communities. Please consider donating generously to help our activities.
Could I invite you to set up a standing order/direct debit for as little as £5.00 (or the equivalent) a month? Every little helps.
Thank you
Paul Williams
Director
MDI
Excellent talk by Yasir Qadhi on how orientalists distort the truth about the Prophet (pbuh)
Posted: October 23, 2011 Filed under: Islamophobia, lectures, Videos 2 Comments »Further Bolstering the Shahada
Posted: October 21, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, MDI, Question Mark Leave a comment »More Responses to Sam Shamoun on Islamic Shahada
by MDI Researcher Question Mark
Acknowledgement: We acknowledge Shaikh Jalal Abualrub’s help for the paper. May Allah (SWT) reward him.
Renowned Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi wrote a response to one of Sam Shamoun’s paper. Shamoun’s subject paper has been refuted at “donotsaytrinity” as well, specifically, here apart from that readers might be interested to visit the following articles dealing with Islamic Shahada:
- Islamic Shahada – The Only True Shahada
- Islamic Shahada – The Invincible Shahada
- True Shahada Indeed
- The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part 1]
- The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part 2]
- The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part 3]
Nevertheless, no sooner did Zawadi wrote a response – Shamoun came out with his self styled reply which we shall be dealing here, inshallah.
Zawadi wrote, to paraphrase, just because the exact formulation of the Islamic Shahada is not to be found in Qur’an it does not mean that the concept is not present in the Qur’an (3:18, 48:29). To this – Shamoun responded:
“First, we are glad that Zawadi agrees that just because an exact formulation or word is not found in a document (in this case the Quran) this doesn’t necessarily mean that the book or source doesn’t teach it. Since we assume that Zawadi is consistent we therefore expect him to never use the argument that the Holy Bible doesn’t teach doctrines such as the Holy Trinity just because the exact word or formulation is not found within the Jewish-Christian Scriptures.
Second, as we shall shortly show, the followers of Rashad Khalifa (also known as submitters) are correct in what they basically stated. Zawadi’s comments that the two parts of the Islamic confession are found in the Quran are beside the point. The argument is not whether one can find references where Muhammad is called an apostle or messenger of Allah. The real issue is whether the Quran makes it an article of faith to profess that Allah alone is God AND that Muhammad is his messenger in order to be recognized as a Muslim. The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t, and to use the logic employed by Zawadi would end proving that the creed of Islam should also include specific mention of other messengers as well. More on this later.”
Taking Shamoun’s first objection first – he has utterly misunderstood Zawadi’s argument because Zawadi knows that Islamic cannon of scripture is not restricted to Qur’an only but extends to Hadith literature as well. The truth of the matter is that Zawadi provided Hadith quotations in his reply which did prove that the exact formulation of the Shahada is not only just present in the sacred scriptures but was/is also to be testified to be recognized as Muslim.
What Zawadi would have stated is that just because the exact formulation is not in Qur’an word by word but the concept is there in it should be amalgamated with the fact that the exact formulation IS PRESENT in Hadith literature. This further bolsters Zawadi’s point because exact formulation is present in Hadith and the concept is worded in Qur’an.
Secondly, we would be more than glad to provide Shamoun with proofs that Islamic Scriptures does make the Islamic Shahada as an article of faith to be recognized as a Muslim. Shamoun demanded:
“The real issue is whether the Quran makes it an article of faith to profess that Allah alone is God AND that Muhammad is his messenger in order to be recognized as a Muslim.”
Nevertheless, we would like to point out the problem or shrewdness in Shamoun’s demand. Why is Shamoun demanding proof from Qur’an only? Would he accept if the proof for the testimony of Islamic Shahada is provided from Hadith Literature? If not, then why?
Nevertheless, it was one of Zawadi’s point to prove that Muslims at the time of the prophet (peace be upon him) did used to proclaim the Islamic Shahada.
Zawadi responded:
“Even the people back at Prophet Muhammad’s time used to bear witness that he was the Messenger of God.
Surah 63:1
When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah’s messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely.
The verse is talking about those hypocrites that used to come and bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger but they were lying inside. Allah knew they were lying. But the point that I am trying to show from this verse is that people at the time of the Prophet did bear witness that he is the Messenger of God.
So the concept of bearing witness that Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his Messenger is a concept found in the Quran. It does not have to be word by word in the same sentence. This in no way indicates Muhammad is divine or anything just like how the Rashad Khalifa sect claim. The Prophet warned us not to do the same mistake as the Christians”
To the above response Shamoun argued back that it was only bunch of hypocrites who proclaimed the Shahada and not the sincere Muslims in general:
“Zawadi’s claim that Sura 63:1 shows that people were confessing Muhammad as God’s messenger misses the point. The point here is that it is only the deceivers who were bearing witness that Muhammad is a messenger in order to mask their deception and unbelieving hearts. True believers do not need to publicly bear witness that Muhammad is a messenger since they show that this is what they believe by simply obeying his instructions. To put it another way, it wasn’t the believers at the time of Muhammad who were verbally bearing witness that he was an apostle, but unbelievers and hypocrites that did so.
Second, the issue is not whether the Quran claims that Allah testifies that Muhammad is his messenger, or that believers are to believe that he is. The issue at hand, which Zawadi conveniently ignores, is whether Muslims are required to make a public confession, to testify in the words given in the hadith literature, i.e. “I beat witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” in order to be recognized as a Muslim. The fact of the matter is that the Quran nowhere commands Muslims to make this profession, the confession that Muhammad is Allah’s messenger in order to validate their Islam.” (Bold and Italic emphasize ours)
We would soon show Shamoun that it was not just “only the deceivers who were bearing witness that Muhammad is a messenger…” but even the sincere Muslims were proclaiming the Shahada. Plus, we will also provide proofs that believers to be recognized as Muslims were required to proclaim Shahada in public – it was a practice during prophet’s (peace be upon him) time!
We provide two Hadith, notwithstanding – Shamoun demands proofs from Qur’an. His demand from Qur’an (only) is absurd:
Abu Dhar – a non-muslim becoming believer after proclaiming Islamic Shahada:
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 725
Narrated Abu Jamra:
“…I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and I (also) testify that Muhammad is Allah’s Slave and His Apostle.’ (Hearing that) the Quraishi men said, ‘Get at this Sabi (i.e. Muslim) !…’
Abdallah bin Salam – another non-muslim becoming believer by proclaiming the Islamic Shahada:
“Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 55 :: Hadith 546
Narrated Anas:
“…On that ‘Abdullah bin Salam said, “I TESTIFY that you are the Apostle of Allah.” ‘Abdullah bin Salam further said, “O Allah’s Apostle! The Jews are liars, and if they should come to know about my conversion to Islam before you ask them (about me), they would tell a lie about me.” The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and ‘Abdullah went inside the house. Allah’s Apostle asked (the Jews), “What kind of man is ‘Abdullah bin Salam amongst you?” They replied, “He is the most learned person amongst us, and the best amongst us, and the son of the best amongst us.” Allah’s Apostle said, “What do you think if he embraces Islam (will you do as he does)?” The Jews said, “May Allah save him from it.” Then ‘Abdullah bin Salam came out in front of them saying, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.” Thereupon they said, “He is the evilest among us, and the son of the evilest amongst us,” and continued talking badly of him.”
Notice how both Abu Dhar (RAA) and Abdallah Bin Salam (RAA) did proclaim the Islamic Shahada publicly to recognize themselves as Muslims who were initially non-muslims.
Continuing further on his arguments, Shamoun quotes Qur’an:
“SAY you: ‘We BELIEVE in God, AND in that which has been sent down on us AND sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, AND that which was given to Moses AND Jesus AND the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.’ S. 2:136 Arberry
The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in God, His angels, His books, AND HIS APOSTLES. “WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION (they say) BETWEEN ON AND ANOTHER OF HIS APOSTLES.” AND THEY SAY: “We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys.” S. 2:285 Y. Ali”
O you who BELIEVE! BELIEVE in Allah AND His Apostle AND the Book which He has revealed to His Apostle AND the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels AND His APOSTLES and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error. S. 4:136 Shakir
To allege,
“The fact is that the orthodox Sunni creed does make a distinction since it singles out Muhammad alone in its confession. This is a direct violation of and in stark contradiction to the plain teachings of the Quran.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)
We have four responses in line to the above objection from Shamoun:
First Response:
The subject verses clearly exhort Muslims to BELIEVE in all earlier Prophets, their Books, Angels etc:
- “SAY you: ‘We BELIEVE in God, AND…” (Qur’an 2:136)
- “The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. (Qur’an 2:285)
- “O you who BELIEVE! BELIEVE in Allah AND… (Qur’an 4:136)
Having noticed that, under the light of the above verses, Shamoun’s objection would hold good if Muslims by, supposedly, excluding the names of earlier prophets from the official Islamic Shahada stop “believing” in earlier prophets, on the contrary, Muslims – based on the same Qur’anic verses are compelled to believe in all earlier prophets, thus, Shamoun has no argument here.
Supporting our point, late renowned Tafseer Scholar Ibn Abbas observes:
“Then He taught the believers the path of divine Oneness so that the Jews and Christians had an indication of what this divine Oneness means, saying: (Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us) i.e. in Muhammad and the Qur’an (and that which was revealed unto Abraham) i.e. we believe in Abraham and his Scripture, (and Ishmael) and we believe in Ishmael and his Scripture, (and Isaac) and in Isaac and his Scripture, (and Jacob) and in Jacob and his Scripture, (and the tribes) and in the sons of Jacob and their Scriptures, (and that which Moses and Jesus received) i.e. we believe in Moses and the Torah and in Jesus and the Gospel, (and that which the Prophets received) We also believe in all the prophets and their Scriptures (from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them) that Allah sent them as prophets to teach divine Oneness, (and unto Him we have surrendered) we acknowledge that we worship Him and declare that there is only one true God.” (Tafsir Ibn – Abbas. Bold, Italics, Capital and Underline emphasize ours)
Notice the reason that Ibn Abbas provides for Muslims to not to make distinction between Prophets is THAT all Prophets were sent from one True God – Allah (SWT) to teach monotheism – So the premise for making no distinction between Prophets is to believe that all Prophets came from one true God to teach monotheism. And, all Muslims do believe that all earlier prophets came from Allah (SWT) to teach monotheism – and thus, once again, there is no distinction made between prophets made in the Official Islamic Shahada.
To sum up the argument, if Shamoun wants to use Qur’an 2:136 against Muslims for making distinctions between prophets – he must prove us that Muslims do not:
- “Believe” in earlier Prophets
- Believe that earlier Prophets came from one True God – Allah (SWT).
Second Response:
By concluding a baseless argument that Muslims, who follow Qur’an in every aspect of life, have made a distinction between prophets trespassing against the teaching of Qur’an – Shamoun has once again exposed himself that to fit his arguments he will not pay respect to the context.
So let us bring forth the context of the subject verse(s), Allah willing.
Here is the subject verse with its context, Qur’an 2: 135 – 136, (Yusuf Ali Translation):
“They say: “Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation).” Say thou: “Nay! (I would rather) the religion of Abraham, the True, and he joined not gods with Allah.”
Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah (in Islam).” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)
Observe that in verse 2:135 the Jews and Christians wanted Muslims to be either Jews or Christians to be saved – they wanted Muslims to have a partisan approach towards God’s religion which was, in actuality, universal for all humanity, notwithstanding the fact whether s/he be a Jew or a Christian. Then came verse 136 as a rebuke to this partisan approach where Mohammad (peace be upon him) was exhorted to reply that he and his people would rather follow the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him), that is Islam and would believe in all which was ordained to believe by Allah (SWT).
As the Jalalyns explain in their Tafseer:
“Say: (this address is to the believers) ‘We believe in God, and in that which has been revealed to us, the Qur’ān, and revealed to Abraham, the ten scrolls, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, his sons, and that which was given to Moses, the Torah, and Jesus, the Gospel, and the prophets, from their Lord, of Books and signs, we make no division between any of them, believing in some and disbelieving in others in the manner of Jews and Christians, and to Him we submit”. (Tafsir Al-Jalalyn . Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)
According to the Jalals the purpose of the verse was to point to the Jews and Christians towards the fact that Muslims would not commit the same sin which they did – by believing in some Prophets while rejecting others. Thus, once again, if Shamoun wants to hold Qur’an 2:136 against Muslims (for discrimination between prophets in the Shahada) then he should prove that Muslims believe in certain Prophets and reject others as the Jews and the Christians.
From the foregoing it is limpidly observable that this argument has got nothing to do whether Muslims include the names of Prophets in their Official Shahada or not rather it is a matter of belief in earlier prophets. It is just another blatant misuse of the Qur’anic verses out of context against Muslims which always gets caught red handed to the chagrin of Shamoun.
For the brevity of this paper we are not responding to the other two verses, that is, Qur’an 2:285 and 4:136 which he used. The above two arguments which hold good for Qur’an 2:136 also hold good for Qur’an 2:285 and 4:136.
Third Response:
Traditionally Islam is understood the way it was practiced by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Righteous Generations after him. If something pertaining to Islam was either uttered by Prophet or acted upon then that becomes a basis for Islamic teachings.
Similarly, if with the authority of the Prophet (peace be upon him) something was said and acted upon by the members of Righteous Generations then that too becomes the basis for Islamic teachings.
Having said that, we enquire Shamoun to show us a single proof from them where they testified the Official Islamic Shahada by proclaiming the names of all the previous Prophets.
On the contrary we have quoted Hadiths above of Abu Dharr and Abdallah Ibn Salam (RAA) where they recognized themselves as Muslims by testifying the Official Islamic Shahada which bore the name of Mohammad (peace be upon him) alone.
(Please continue reading below to find Fourth Response as well.)
To further damage his position, Shamoun derived the following,
“In light of the foregoing, the Islamic confession of faith would go something like this:
I bear witness that:
(1) I believe in Allah.
(2) I believe in His angels.
(3) I believe in His books.
(4) I believe in His messengers and that I do not make a difference or differentiate between any of them.”
Although we have already proved above that the Qur’anic verses Shamoun is using against Muslims do not support his case, on that premise – if verses do not support his basic claim, that is, Muslims distinguish between Prophets then his further derivations, as cited above, do not stand as well.
However, we will briefly respond to him here as well.
Firstly, notice that the Official Islamic Shahada is to “bear witness…” or “to testify…”, however, Shamoun’s interpretation and derivation has Muslims to “believe in Allah, Angels, Books, Messengers etc”. We ask Shamoun whether believing the same as testifying officially? Because Muslims believe in a variety of things including belief in:
- Resurrection
- Life after death
- Paradise and Hell
- Judgment day/ Events of the Judgment
- Predestination (Qadr) (Source)
Shamoun’s next argument was grotesque to say the least:
“Moreover, the Quran says that prophets were all inspired to profess that Allah is god alone:
And We sent never a Messenger before thee except that We revealed to him, saying, There is no god but I; so serve Me.’ S. 21:25 Arberry
It even claims that prophets and messengers commanded people to fear Allah and obey them:
The people of Noah treated the Messengers as liars, When their brother Noah said to them, ‘Will you not be God-Fearing? Surely I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust. So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME; And I ask you no reward for it. My reward is only with the Lord of the worlds; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME;’ S. 26:105-110 Sher Ali
The tribe of Ad rejected the Messengers, When their Brother Hud said to them, ‘Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME… So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME;’ S. 26:123-126, 131 Sher Ali
The tribe of Thamud also rejected the Messengers, When their brother Salih said to them, ‘will you not guard against evil? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME… So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME;’ S. 26:141-144, 150 Sher Ali
The people of Lot rejected the Messengers, When their brother Lot said to them, ‘Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME.’ S. 26:160-163
The people of the Wood rejected the Messengers, When Shu’aib said to them, `Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust. So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME.’ S. 26:176-179
This again shows that to follow ONLY the Qur’ans teachings a Muslim would be forced to confess faith not just in Allah’s unity but also profess belief in the apostleship of many messengers by explicitly referring to them by name!”
Observe how Shamoun bases his argument on “…follow ONLY the Qur’an” methodology, having seen that, let us point out some of the fundamental problems in Shamoun’s argument:
- We would like to ask Shamoun that with which authority he said that Muslims need to testify their Official Islamic Shahada by “explicitly referring to them by name”. The verses cited above does not say that the Muslims of Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) community and era should do so! Thus, Shamoun’s assumption begs more substantial proofs besides he is putting his words in the pure and divine verses.
- Continuing on a). All the previous Prophets before Mohammad (peace be upon him), as cited in the above verses, were particularly speaking to the community to which they were sent – so for those Muslims it would have been perfectly all right for them to testify, their belief in Allah (SWT) and in that particular messenger. It was perfectly alright for them to then proclaim:
“I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and Noah/Hud/Salih/Lot/Shuaib (peace be upon them) is the messenger of Allah”
However, we find no evidence from the cited verses that it had to continue to the Muslims of Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) community.
Fourth Response:
- Continuing on b). It would be inappropriate, if not incorrect, to include any other name in the official Islamic Shahada – without any solid requirement to do so, because we are the members of the community of Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) prophet hood -following the laws and regulations which were instituted in his prophet hood. Consider the following Hadith for a clearer understanding of our argument:
Muhammad Ibn al-Alâ’ told us that Ibn Numayr reported from Mujâlid from Ibn Aamir from Jaabir that Umar Ibn al-Khattâb brought a copy of the Torah to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: “O Apostle of God, this is a copy of the Torah.” But [the Prophet] kept silent. Then Umar started reading and the face of the Prophet kept changing. So, Abu Bakr interrupted him violently: “Don’t you see the face of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?” Umar looked at the Prophet’s face and said “May God preserve me from His anger and from the anger of his Apostle (peace be upon him), we accepted God as Lord and Islâm as religion and Muhammad as prophet.” Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “By the One Who owns Muhammad’s soul, if Moses (peace be upon him) appeared to you and you followed him and left me, you would go astray from the right path and if he were alive and reached [the time of] my prophethood he would have followed me. ” (Sunan Al Daarimi, Kitab: Al Muqadimmah, Bab: Maa Yuttaqaa min tafseer Hadeeth Al Nabi Salaah Allaahu ‘Alayhi Wassallam, Hadith no. 436, Source.)
- Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name is enough for the Official Islamic Shahada because (i) he is the epitome or all prophet hood – “seal of the Prophets” (Qur’an 33:40) plus (ii) he is the one who taught us about previous Prophets – so by just taking his name we inadvertently include all other Prophets in the Official Islamic Shahada there by obviating the superfluous and unnecessary act of taking (at least) 24 other names besides.
So much for the so accusations on Muslims that they discriminate between Prophets!
Further when Zawadi objected to Submitter understanding of Qur’an 63:1 – Shamoun responded back. Here are the exchanges and after that follows our response to Shamoun:
“Zawadi also had this to say regarding the Muslim submitters use of Sura 63:1:
My Response:
This is very poor understanding of Scripture. The verse is not saying that hypocrites are the ones who bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger. It is saying that those specific hypocrites are lying when they say that they bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. They say it, but don’t mean it inside. The verse would not make sense. How can God accus[sic] them of lying when they say Muhammad is a Messenger of God and it is there in the Quran that Muhammad is a Messenger of God? God is saying that they are lying because they don’t mean what they say.
RESPONSE:
What truly shows poor understanding is Zawadi’s distortion of the point being made by the submitters. As we just saw above, their point wasn’t that Allah was accusing the hypocrites for lying when they testified that Muhammad was his messenger. Their point was that the only group that felt the need to publicly testify that Muhammad was a messenger were the liars and hypocrites as a way of covering up their disbelief. Basically, they are trying to show that the Quran doesn’t require believers to publicly profess Muhammad’s apostleship since by obeying and following the Quran they will be proving their belief in him.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)
Two responses to Shamoun are in order:
- It is important to understand that it was not customary or traditional ONLY of the hypocrites and liars to testify Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) Prophet hood as Shamoun and Submitters want to prove.
Zawadi was absolutely correct to point out that those specific people who were testifying his Prophet hood were charlatans and liars, however, there were numerous other faithful Muslims testifying the Shahada too, we have already provided Hadiths proving it.
Because in Qur’an 63:1 we have bunch of hypocrites exposed does not mean this verse can be used to conclude that “Quran doesn’t require believers to publicly profess Muhammad’s apostleship”. Such a statement requires more support from the texts, especially when Hadith resources are filled with faithful believers testifying the Shahada. And thus, Shamoun’s gauche exegesis is again called in to question.
- Submitters and Shamoun should prove that “the only group that felt the need to publicly testify that Muhammad was a messenger were the liars and hypocrites as a way of covering up their disbelief.” It is a totally unsupported myth because we have already provided two Hadiths which proves that sincere Muslims also proclaimed and testified Mohammad (peace be upon him) as a Prophet of God in their Shahada. So, it was not just the “group of hypocrites” who felt to testify but sincere first generation Muslims as well.
Does testifying Mohammad (peace be upon him) in the Shahada violates Islamic Monotheism?
Shamoun often quotes an Islamic author and his work, namely, Qadi Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi and Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta’rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One) respectively. Shamoun jumps to quote this book partially and deceitfully, we have already exposed Shamoun over this argument at Islamic Shahada – The Only True Shahada (Refer “Scholar Say” Section of the paper).
However, because it is one of Shamoun’s celebrated argument let us respond to it once again. Basically in the Qadi’s book there are comments of various Muslims which Shamoun uses to try to prove that the Shahada violates Islamic monotheism. Herein we will take all of them one at a time and respond.
“Qatada said, “Allah exalted his fame in this world and the Next. There is no speaker, witness nor anyone doing the prayer who fails to say, ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’”
We have a very simple response to the above Qatada quotation. Rhetorically replying, how does the above remark from Qatada violate Islamic monotheism?
“Abu Sa’id al-Khudri related that the Prophet said, “Jibril, peace be upon him, came to me and said, ‘My Lord and your Lord says, ‘Do you know how I have exalted your fame?”’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know best.’ He said, ‘When I am mentioned you are mentioned with Me.’”
Here again we fail to understand how Khudri’s (RAA) comment goes againt the Islamic monotheism. However, if people find it hard to accept that “when Allah (SWT) is mentioned Prophet (peace be upon him) is mentioned with Him” then they should take into account the capacity in which Mohammad (peace be upon him) is mentioned with Allah (SWT) in the Shahada. He is not mentioned as God besides Allah (SWT) in the Shahada rather he is mentioned as a prophet and a slave (to Allah) in it. This is further proven by Ja’far ibn Muhammad as Sadiq’s comment (in the same source Shamoun is using) where he remarked:
“No one mentions YOU as the Messenger but that he mentions Me as the Lord.”
Moreover, the same book which Shamoun is using here, Yahya ibn Adam explained the meaning and interpretation of “exalting the fame” of prophet (peace be upon him). He said,
“The sura continues: “Did We not exalt your fame?” (94:4) Yahya ibn Adam said that this meant BY BEING GIVEN PROPHET HOOD. (Muhammad Messenger of Allah. Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad, Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Medinah Press Granada, Spain, ISBN 1 874216 26 2, pp.7. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)
Notice that exalting Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) fame means, the coronation of Mohammad (peace be upon him) as prophet. This certainly does not violate any Islamic Monotheism rather it further corroborates it because Mohammad (peace be upon him) is rightly not deemed as God but a prophet. Furthermore, we also notice Shamoun hiding Yahya ibn Adam’s comment which was present in the same page.
Furthermore,
“Ibn ‘Ata quoted a hadith qudsi saying, “I completed belief with your being mentioned with Me.” And another one which says, “I have made your mention part of My mention so whoever mentions Me, mentions you.”
“Ja’far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, “No one mentions you as the Messenger but that he mentions Me as the Lord.”
Once again, we do not specifically see the problem with Ibn ‘Ata’s remark because when we ponder in to the Shahada we find that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is indeed mentioned with Allah (SWT), however, the point which Shamoun misses is that he is mentioned as a prophet and not a God beside Allah (SWT). Thus, there is no breach of Islamic Monotheism.
Just below Ja’far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq’s remark, Al-Marwardi suggested “that the Station of Intercession was being referred to by this.” Thus, how does this violate Islamic monotheism if these are talking about “Station of Intercession”?
Shamoun’s next quotation,
“The fact that mention of the Prophet is directly connected to mention of Allah also shows that obedience to the Prophet is connected to obedience to Allah and his name to Allah’s name. Allah says, “Obey Allah and His Messenger” (2:32) and “Believe in Allah and His Messenger.” (4:136) Allah joins them together using the conjunction wa WHICH IS THE CONJUNCTION OF PARTNERSHIP. IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THIS CONJUNCTION IN CONNECTION WITH ALLAH IN THE CASE OF ANYONE EXCEPT THE PROPHET.”
Two responses are in order:
Firstly, As Yahsubi suggests that conjunction “Wa” is the conjunction of partnership, however, Shamoun again misses the point that this so called “partnership” between Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him) is the “partnership” of God and His Slave/Messenger – it is a God-Slave or God-Messenger “partnership” and not God-God partnership. Thus once again, Shamoun has awfully misunderstood before attacking straw-man.
Secondly, if we grant Shamoun that Yahsubi was alluding about God – God “partnership” through the usage of the conjunction “wa”, yet we personally do not agree with Yahsubi’s remark for the following reasons:
Firstly, Yahsubi’s statement that, “IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THIS CONJUNCTION IN CONNECTION WITH ALLAH IN THE CASE OF ANYONE EXCEPT THE PROPHET ”.
This statement goes head on against the plain teachings of Qur’an where the same conjunction is used for other Prophets, knowledgeable People, Angels, Books etc respectively:
“The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, AND(WA) His messengers. “We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers.” And they say: “We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys.” (Interpretations of the meanings of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 2:285)
Conjunction “WA” used for Jesus (peace be upon him):
“(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, AND OBEY ME.” (Interpretations of the meanings of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 5:50. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)
When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: “Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah AND OBEY ME (Interpretations of the meanings of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 43:63. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)
Conjunction “WA” used for Noah (peace be upon him):
“That ye should worship Allah, fear Him and OBEY ME:” (Interpretations of the meanings of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 20:10. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours.)
Conjunction “WA” used for non – prophets!
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, AND (WA) those charged with authority among you.”, (Interpretations of the meanings of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 5:64. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours.)
Secondly, the conjunction “WA” cannot be used with anybody else, including Mohammad (peace be upon him), if it signifies partnership with Allah (SWT) in His deity. So, if Yahsubi is using it, which we HIGHLY DOUBT, then he is incorrect – neither is Yahsubi God nor Prophet.
Shamoun’s next quotation:
“Hudhayfa said that the Prophet said, “None of you should say, ‘What Allah wills and (wa) so-and-so wills.’ Rather say, ‘What Allah wills.’ Then stop and say, ‘So-and-so wills.’”
We do not see the issue here. Shamoun should write what he intends to prove through this quotation.
Further,
“Al-Khattabi said, “The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the will of Allah before the will of others. He chose ‘then’ (thumma) which implies sequence and deference as opposed to ‘and’ (wa) WHICH IMPLIES PARTNERSHIP.”
Shamoun misses a vital point that in the above Al-Khattabi quotation the conjunction “wa” is used in sharing the “will” of Allah (SWT) – one of His attributes, with somebody else. However, in the Shahada “wa” is just the continuation of two different statements, namely, deity of Allah (SWT) AND prophet hood of Mohammad (peace be upon him), thus, in Shahada no sharing of Allah’s (SWT) attribute(s) is proved. Thus, again, Shamoun has no substantial argument from the above citation.
“Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the presence of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, “Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever rebels against them both (joining them together by using the dual form) …” The Prophet said to him, “What a bad speaker you are! Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]“
Observe that in the above citation the speaker joined Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him) without categorizing and differentiating who is who. The speaker did not separate Allah (SWT) as deity and Mohammad (peace be upon him) as His messenger as it is rightly done in the Shahada. Notice that Mohammad (peace be upon him) did not oust the speaker when he said obey Allah (SWT) and His messenger rather he took offense when speaker said “…rebels against them both”.
If there was really a problem in the usage of the two names together then Mohammad (peace be upon him) should have been consistent and rebuked the speaker when he was speaking of obeying Allah (SWT) and His Messenger, which the prophet didn’t do!
Thus, the speaker joined the two unjustifiably against the Islamic monotheism. Our explanation is further supported by Abu Sulayman’s quotation:
“Abu Sulayman said, “He disliked the two names being joined together in that way because it implies equality.” …
According to Abu Sulayman, the prophet (peace be upon him) disliked his name to be joined with Allah’s (SWT) in a certain special way, “in that way”. The two names should not be joined in any way which implies equality of Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him) like in this case where the speaker said, “…rebels against them both”. The status of each one of them should be clearly separated just like in the Shahada that “…And Mohammad IS HIS MESSENGER”.
After quoting the above scholars Shamoun wrote:
“Thus, Muslim sources, not Christians or Orientalists, emphatically affirm that Muhammad’s name being combined with Allah through the use of the Arabic conjunction wa implies partnership, that Muhammad is a partner with Allah! This is especially true when we realize that according to Sunni Islam the recitation of the Islamic creed is a necessary first step in attaining salvation. In other words, Muslim salvation is dependent on reciting that Allah is god alone and Muhammad is his messenger, which means that Muhammad is just as much a necessary object of salvation as is Allah!”
There are various problems in the passage. Let us consider them:
Firstly, Shamoun saying, “Thus, Muslim sources, not Christians or Orientalists, emphatically affirm that…” It hardly matters whether the sources are Muslim or not, because:
- The so called “Muslim sources” should be backed from Islamic Scriptures which was hardly to be found in the citations Shamoun provided.
- Most of quotations did not had any sanad/isnad with them so we actually do not know the veracity of the citations notwithstanding they are coming from “Muslim Sources”.
Secondly, “…Muhammad’s name being combined with Allah through the use of the Arabic conjunction wa implies partnership, that Muhammad is a partner with Allah!”
Well, no Muslim denies that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is a partner with Allah (SWT). He is indeed a partner with him – he shares the partnership of slave to Lord, messenger to God – as is conspicuous in the Shahada and elsewhere in the Islamic Scriptures.
Thirdly, “In other words, Muslim salvation is dependent on reciting that Allah is god alone and Muhammad is his messenger, which means that Muhammad is just as much a necessary object of salvation as is Allah!”
Once again, which Muslim ever denied that salvation does not depend upon the proclamation of “Muhammad as his messenger”. However, Shamoun is incorrect when he claims that “Muhammad is just as much a necessary object of salvation as is Allah!” This is because, without a doubt, Mohammad (peace be upon him) is an impertinent “object of salvation” in the capacity of his prophet hood, however, Allah (SWT) is also of paramount importance (“object of salvation”) in the capacity of His deity. Thus, there is no common grounds for comparison between Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him) then what is Shamoun comparing!
Fourthly, on the same lines, it is not only Mohammad (peace be upon him) on which salvation is pivoted, nevertheless, it depends upon the belief in all previous prophets, book, angels etc.
“Those who deny Allah and His messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His MESSENGERS, saying: “We believe in some but reject others”: And (those who) wish to take a course midway,- They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment. To those who believe in Allah and His messengers and make no distinction between any of the messengers, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur’an 4:150-152, Yusuf Ali)
“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers;” (Qur’an 2:177, Yusuf Ali)
Notice that in the first verse adduced above, Allah (SWT) is specifically speaking of belief in ALL MESSENGERS, more importantly than that, according to the same verse, belief in some would lead to “humiliating punishment”, nevertheless, belief in all of them would provide “rewards” to the believer. Therefore, all previous messengers, besides Mohammad (peace be upon him) are also “objects of salvation” just like Mohammad (peace be upon him).
Shaikh Saleh Ibn Fawzan Ibn al – Fawzaan comments on the above Qur’anic verses:
“In these verses:
- Allah has linked faith in Messengers with faith in Him, His Angels and His Books.
- Allah has ruled Kufr (disbelief) for those who distinguish between Allah and His messengers – believing in some while rejecting others.” (We believe in all the prophets and all the messengers, by Shaikh Saleh Ibn Fawzan Ibn al – Fawzaan, Translated by Shawana A. Aziz, Pg. 4, Published at Quran Sunnah Educational Programs. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)
After his dabbling ignorantly at the Arabic “wa”, – Shamoun then embarks to educate Christians about the Greek “kai” which, for him, conjoins the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) and Yahweh. He wrote,
“And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, AND (kai) Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” John 17:3
The Lord Jesus, by using the Greek conjunction kai in his prayer, makes himself the necessary object of the knowledge that leads to eternal life. In other words, Jesus makes himself a coequal partner with God by claiming that eternal life is dependent on knowing both the Father and the Son.”
The problem in the above explanation is that Shamoun assumed Jesus (peace be upon him) became “coequal partner with God” because his knowledge which leads to eternal life.
Shamoun’s assumption is wild and invalid because:
- The verse clearly differentiates Jesus (peace be upon him) separate from God – who is specifically the ONLY God. In other words, there are no Gods besides Him – otherwise the so inspired word “ONLY” will have no meaning and sense in the verse. Thus, Jesus (peace be upon him) is not God.
- Continuing on above, if Jesus (peace be upon him) was really a God – coequal with other God then why did not he continue to say “…whom you have sent as God OR as only true God OR as another only true God”. It is expected to include these phrases especially when this verse is so important that it is related to the salvation of Christians!
- On the contrary, why does Jesus (peace be upon him), in the verse, puts himself to the authority of some higher God as if he was abiding by the order – saying, “…whom you have sent” (cf. John 17:9).
- In fact, in the above verse, Jesus (peace be upon him) humbling himself to some higher God establishes his true status of just an ambassador/prophet/messenger as elsewhere found in Bible:
“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him inthe midst of you, as ye yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22, The Holy Bible King James Version. Pdf version.)
Notice that in this verse again, Paul separates Jesus (peace be upon him) from the “only true God”. He specifically defines Jesus (peace be upon him) (1.) as a man (2.) approved by some higher authority, namely, God (thus, again, he cannot be God) (3.) God was performing miracles through Jesus (peace be upon him) which again means that he is differentiated from the ONLY true God and he is not God.
Based on John 17:3 in conjunction with Acts 2:22, it seems like Jesus (peace be upon him) fits more the bill of his prophet hood than deity as Mohammad (peace be upon him) in Islamic Shahada because they both are:
- Separate from the ONLY true God
- God has authority over them
- Men approved by God and,
- God performing miracles through them (peace be upon him)
Based on John 17:3 and Acts 2:22, Jesus (peace be upon him) shares the partnership of a prophet or an ambassador which God send just as in the Islamic Shahada Mohammad (peace be upon him) share the partnership of prophet hood with Allah (SWT). Thus, rather than doing any good to Shamoun – an appeal to John 17:3 has further bolstered the Islamic Shahada.
Shamoun continued to quote two Hadiths to prove that Muslims make distinction between prophets, especially with his so called lord and savior Jesus (peace be upon him):
“Narrated ‘Ubada:
The Prophet said, “If anyone testifies that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle, and that Jesus is Allah’s Slave and His Apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit from Him, and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true, Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he had done even if those deeds were few.” (Junada, the sub-narrator said, “‘Ubada added, ‘Such a person can enter Paradise through any of its eight gates he likes.’”) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 644)
It is narrated on the authority of Ubadah b. Samit that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: He who said: “There is no god but Allah, He is One and there is no associate with Him, that Muhammad is his servant and His messenger, that Christ is servant and the son of His slave-girl and he (Christ) His word which He communicated to Mary and is His Spirit, that Paradise is a fact and Hell is a fact,” Allah would make him (he who affirms these truths enter Paradise through any one of its eight doors which he would like. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 0043)
Before moving to the response we would do nomenclature for the two different types of Shahada under question. This nomenclature is only for the sake of clarity of understanding and explanation. It has got nothing to do with Islam:
- The Official Islamic Shahada, the one which is more common, would be called as “Mohammad (peace be upon him) Shahada”
- The Shahada in the above adduced verses which include Jesus (peace be upon him) as well, would be named as “Jesus (peace be upon him) Shahada”
Having said that let us begin with our response…
Shamoun’s argument is so weak that we would like to respond it through two approaches, namely, Concordant and Discordant approach:
Concordant Approach:
Firstly, based on the above Hadith, anyone can testify Jesus’ (peace be upon him) testimony in the Shahada. That being the case, where is the so called distinction Shamoun is talking about? As a matter of fact many Muslims do testify this type of Shahada.
Secondly, it is not that Jesus (peace be upon him) Shahada can only be testified but it is actually being testified in practice even today:
“Christian women convert to Islam on the spot”
Discordant Approach:
Firstly, observe that the Sahih Muslim rendering of the Jesus (peace be upon him) Shahada does not stress on testifying but it says “he who says”. Saying could mean to just say for the sake of reciting it (for blessings), remembering it, teaching it, which would be different from proclaiming as an official testimony. This explanation of ours is further supported by the points to follow:
Secondly, from a closer look of the Hadiths cited above, it is clear that the above Hadiths were not actually revealed to set words for the Official Islamic Shahada. Notice that both the Hadith starts by saying that anyone who “testifies or says” certain things would be rewarded with certain other things. The construction of the above Hadiths is like:
“If any one testifies X then s/he will be rewarded by Y”
The purpose of the Hadiths was to inform the testifiers of the paradise they would get as reward if they testify the Jesus (peace be upon him) Shahada – which has got nothing to do with setting up words for the Official Islamic Shahada or the Mohammad (peace be upon him) Shahada hence they cannot be held as proof for establishing Official Islamic Shahada.
Thirdly, corroborating the above (two) point(s) we do not find the first generation Muslims testifying the “Jesus (peace be upon him)Shahada”. It is worthwhile to note that Muslims are to imitate the first generation companions of the prophet. Here are a few examples from them testifying – look out which version of Shahada they are testifying:
“Narrated Abu Ma’bad:
(the slave of Ibn Abbas) Allah’s Apostle said to Muadh when he sent him to Yemen, “You will go to the people of the Scripture. So, when you reach there, invite them to testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and that Muhammad is His Apostle. And if they obey you in that, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them five prayers in each day and night. And if they obey you in that tell them that Allah has made it obligatory on them to pay the Zakat which will be taken from the rich among them and given to the poor among them. If they obey you in that, then avoid taking the best of their possessions, and be afraid of the curse of an oppressed person because there is no screen between his invocation and Allah.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 573)
… Abu Dhar went to the Mosque, where some people from Quraish were present, and said, ‘O folk of Quraish! I testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and I (also) testify that Muhammad is Allah’s Slave and His Apostle.‘ (Hearing that) the Quraishi men said, ‘Get at this Sabi (i.e. Muslim)!’ (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 725)” (Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)
Fourthly, if Shamoun does not withstanding the above three explanations, then he should know that, given the fact that both Jesus (peace be upon him) and Mohammad (peace be upon him) types of Shahada is permissible, Muslims prefer proclaiming “Mohammad (peace be upon him) Shahada” because they know:
- By proclaiming him (only) they are testifying prophet hood of all other prophets besides Books, Angels, Paradise, Hell etc. It was Mohammad (peace be upon him) who taught about them all.
- Muslims have support from the practices of first generation Muslims who testified with only Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) messenger ship proclamation in it.
Fifthly, we would like to quote Zawadi’s response:
“The real testimony is “I witness that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” to become an orthodox Muslim. This is because Prophet Muhammad said that this Shahadah is one of the pillars of Islam and not any other Shahadah is. The other Shahadahs are statements of fact but this is the ultimate Shahadah because the Prophet said that this Shahadah is one of the five pillars of Islam and no other Shahadah.
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles):
1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.
2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.
3. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity).
4. To perform Hajj. (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca)
5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.
Shamoun desperately and miserably responded to the above:
“Moreover, Zawadi’s assumption that Muhammad mentioning this specific shahadah in a list enumerating the pillars of Islam excludes all other shahadahs is simply erroneous. The fact of the matter is that Muhammad NEVER said that this specific profession is the ONLY shahadah that is part of Islam’s pillars. Had Muhammad said this then this would only prove that he contradicted himself, or that the Hadith literature contains contradictory teachings.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)
By writing the above response, Shamoun has grossly exposed his shallow understanding of Islamic theology because the absence of any other Shahada other than the Official Islamic Shahada (in the pillars of Islam), in any authentic Hadith collection proves that Mohammad (peace be upon him) only recommended this type of Shahada; if there would have been other renderings of Shahada included in Islam’s first pillar then they should have found their way in the Islamic Traditions.
So much for the two Hadiths which Shamoun cherishes using to include Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Official Islamic Shahada.
Recapitulate
To recapitulate, in this rebuttal we have seen:
- That Islamic Canon of Scripture is not restricted to Qur’an only and thus an attempt to disprove Islamic Shahada from Qur’an only is sheer straw – man attempt.
- Continuing on (1.), the authentic Hadiths reports do establish the Islamic Shahada as proclaimed by Muslims all over the world. Not only that, they also prove that at the time of the prophet (peace be upon him) proclaiming the Islamic Shahada was the norm.
- We also saw how Shamoun was caught distorting the sense and purpose of divinely inspired verses of Qur’an like, 2:136, 285 to allege that Muslims make distinctions between prophets.
- We witnessed how Shamoun unsuccessfully tried to use distorted imports from Qadi Iyad’s book to establish breach of Islamic Monotheism by the proclamation of Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name in the Shahada.
- We also saw how Shamoun’s straw – man argument of Mohammad (peace be upon him) as an “object of salvation” broke apart on closer observations.
- Rather than doing any good to Shamoun; an appeal to John 17:3 further established the Islamic Shahada!
- Finally, more importantly, we saw how Shamoun was exposed on his poor understanding of God-breathed and uncorrupted Islamic Scripture when he unsuccessfully tried to misuse Hadiths to prove that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) testimony should also be included in the Official Islamic Shahada.
No matter how much anyone tries to challenge the Official Islamic Shahada by their twisted understandings but it only remains for a fact that, “There is no God but Allah (SWT) and Mohammad is His messenger”
Can God become a man?: A Christian/Muslim Dialogue – Australia
Posted: October 17, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Debates, Islam, MDI 4 Comments »
We are happy to announce that our MDI branch in Australia will be taking part in a public event on October 17th, the event will feature MDI speaker Abdullah Kunde, and Dr. James White of Alpha Omega Ministries. Full details of the event, timing, and location can be found on the following link: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4783
Media Reports that Anwar Awlaki ‘killed in Yemen’
Posted: October 1, 2011 Filed under: Islam, The News, Violent extremism 2 Comments »Yemen’s defence ministry has reported that Anwar al-Awlaki, a well-known and controversial imam with ties to al-Qaeda, was killed along with four others.
A government statement released to the media on Friday said the dual US-Yemeni citizen was hunted down by Yemeni forces, but did not elaborate on the circumstances of his death. Awlaki was wanted by both the US and Yemen.
He became more and more extreme in his views supporting the attempted airplane bomb plot during Christmas by Umar Farouk.
Why did he leave the clear teaching of Islam behind and advocate the killing of non-combatants?
Well, watch for yourself as he talks about it in his interview with Al Qaeda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrXYlehAStM
The Role of Faith in Times of Turmoil – Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad
Posted: September 27, 2011 Filed under: Islam Leave a comment »A thoughtful talk one decade on from 9/11
Man who nailed bacon to mosque door avoids prison sentence after Muslim community asks for leniency
Posted: September 24, 2011 Filed under: Christian extremism, Islam 11 Comments »
A churchgoer who stuck bacon to the door of a mosque in South Tyneside as part of a religious hate campaign was branded “un-Christian” by a judge. But John White, 63, walked free from court after the chairman of the mosque wrote a letter to court, begging for leniency.
White was caught on CCTV carrying out the attacks in South Shields in January, Newcastle Crown Court heard. On January 2, the bacon was placed outside the Jam-E-Masjid mosque, in Baring Street, South Shields, which has about 200 regular worshippers. Throughout the month, meat was repeatedly left outside the mosque and a member’s home in Coston Drive, South Shields, was also targeted, with bacon even being stuck to the front door of the mosque.
Tom Moran, prosecuting, said: “Muslims are not allowed to eat or touch pork, and this was absolutely intended to be offensive.”
The bacon was found by the mosque’s treasurer, who covered it with a cardboard box to prevent other members from being offended, then called the police. In a victim impact statement, the family whose home was targeted said they feared that the action was the work of an extremist group.
Mr Moran said: “South Shields has a substantial Bangladeshi and Muslim community, and, by and large, they are well integrated. These offences coincided with a time when in other parts of the world, right-wing extremists were threatening to burn the Quran (the central religious text of the Muslim religion).”
Concerned that the attacks could be sinister threats from a right-wing group, police trawled through CCTV footage before arresting White.
He admitted five charges of religiously aggravated harassment, but claimed that his motivations were personal, targeting a particular Muslim family, over a 20-year grudge.
The court heard that White, a Christian, has attended a church on the same street as the mosque for 20 years.
Despite the fear he caused to the Muslim and Bangladeshi community, chairman of the Jam-E-Masjid mosque, Mohammed Miah, asked the judge to show leniency. In a letter read out in court, Mr Miah described how he had known White since 1982 and said he was known and liked in the community. He said: “We wish the courts to be lenient with John. Although we were upset initially, we do not wish for any serious consequences to happen to John.”
Judge Michael Cartlidge commended the forgiving attitude of the Muslim community and condemned White’s actions as “un-Christian” and “stupid”. White was given a six-month jail sentence, suspended for 12 months. He is also now banned for 12 months from going within 100 metres of the mosque or the family home he targeted.
Shields Gazette, 24 September 2011
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Posted: September 24, 2011 Filed under: Islam Leave a comment »There are, however, more profound reasons for protecting the
‘nakedness’ of others and for concealing our own. […] For a man to try
to cover and inhibit those elements within himself which he would like
to overcome and to bring forward those which he would like to see
triumphant is not ‘hypocrisy’. If he would like to be better than he is,
then he deserves to be encouraged in this aim, and there is something
very peculiar about the contemporary tendency to regard a person’s worst
qualities as representing his ‘true’ self, although it goes hand in
hand with the common belief that ugliness is in some strange way more
‘real’ than beauty and that to discover a shameful secret is to discover the truth
Muslim Calls in a Christian Show
Posted: September 24, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Silly, Videos 2 Comments »
Is There A Place For Gay Muslims?
Posted: September 16, 2011 Filed under: Islam, Videos 1 Comment »Excellent talk on this controversial subject…
Jesus Is Still A Jew!
Posted: September 14, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Videos Leave a comment »Though coming from a Christian point of view it contains much truth the world-wide Church needs to hear…
Why Islam? An audience with Paul Williams
Posted: September 13, 2011 Filed under: lectures, MDI, Videos Leave a comment »A non-Muslim reviews the Qur’an…
Posted: September 9, 2011 Filed under: Guest article, Islam Leave a comment »With the permission of the author Ashmath I post here his recent article on the Quran. His is a moving story of a spiritual seeker who is not constrained by his Western upbringing and culture but has ranged far and wide in search of the Truth. He is not (yet!) a Muslim…
I’m just a guy who feels called by God. I’ve tried finding Him all over the place. I thought I found Him in Catholicism, but I’ve discovered many problems with Christian theology and scripture. A few years ago I did the unthinkable – I investigated Islam’s claims. I’m still investigating Islam and reading the Quran. This blog is intended as a record of my investigations and as a means to share the often surprising things I’m finding out.
Mission Accomplished: Read the Qur’an
Today I completed reading the Qur’an. This being the case, I thought I’d share some of my impressions of it in this post. I do this mainly for those who have not yet read it, as Muslims undoubtedly know much more about what I have read than I myself do. If you are not Muslim, I would very much recommend that you read the Qur’an for yourself and form your own impression of it – you will likely by surprised.
The Qur’an is a book not really much like any other which I have read. It’s also not what I expected. I had expected the book to be much more like the Bible – to be more narrative in nature, with a chronological tale to tell, with history and doctrine pretty clearly outlined. The fact that it’s not like this was my biggest hurdle to get over.
The Qur’an is much more like a series of sermons full of exhortations to faithfulness and moral behavior. It consists of a series of 114 chapters, or suras, each of which has a major theme but is not limited to that theme. And rather than being arranged chronologically, the suras of the Qur’an are arranged according to their length in the original Arabic. It was most useful to me to remember the entire time that I was reading it that the Qur’an was a verbal revelation given to the Prophet Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel and which Muhammad passed on to others verbally. Each sura therefore retains the nature of a spoken sermon, which will serve to give it a different “flavor” than other types of literature which you’re most likely used to reading.
As M.A.S. Abdel Haleem says in the Introduction to his excellent translation,
The Qur’an has its own style. It may be useful to readers to mention some of the important features of this style. The reader should not expect the Qur’an to be arranged chronologically or by subject matter. The Qur’an may present, in the same sura, material about the unity and grace of God, regulations and laws, stories of earlier prophets and nations and the lessons that can be drawn from these, and descriptions of rewards and punishments on the Day of Judgement. This stylistic feature serves to reinforce the message, to persuade and to dissuade.
As Haleem also says, “the Qur’an is above all a book of guidance.” Keep these facts in mind as you read.
Another helpful thing to keep in mind is the fact that Arabic is a very different language from English, and I have never yet read a translation of the Qur’an which read entirely like literature which originated in the English language. I have encountered translations which vary in how easy they are to read, but every translation I have encountered thus far reads like a translation. Accept this the same way you would accept a fascinating lecture from a holy sage with accented English and you’ll be fine.
Moving on from stylistic matters to content, I have to say that the biggest surprise to me was how similar it was to the Bible. Though very different in style from the Bible, it is remarkably similar in content. Missing was the barbarity which I had so ignorantly expected to find within the pages of the Qur’an – all the calls for the beheadings of Jews, the forced conversion of others to Islam, or the divinely-sanctioned honor killings of daughters who happened to glance at boys – all missing from the Qur’an.
It would be false to say that things like the cutting off of the hands of thieves are missing from the Qur’an, but it would also be dishonest to fail to admit that the Bible calls for the killing of disobedient children as well as the killing of those who seek to convert you away from the faith of the Bible. (More about that here.) So, no pots calling kettles black on my watch.
My earlier posts on this blog make no secret of the issues I have with the Bible and with Christian doctrine. As I’ve tried to make clear in this post, the Qur’an is by its nature quite different in focus and aim than the Bible. As a result, the Qur’an is able to maintain a clearer focus without getting lost in trying to retell history, collect a nation’s sacred poetry, give detailed creation stories, provide remedies for leprosy, etc.
I certainly found reading the Qur’an to be challenging, but more importantly I also found that it challenged my preconceptions and left me pleasantly surprised. To be completely honest, I did find the Qur’an to be repetitive and dull at times, much as the Bible is. But I also found it to be edifying. I truly regret not being able to read it in the original Arabic, because it seems clear that it is a treasure and a masterpiece of world literature and it seems clear that I am missing out on much of that beauty by only being able to read it in translation.
Translations I made use of:
- The Qur’an (Oxford World’s Classics)by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem
- Noble Qur’an, The English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary
by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan
- The Message of the Qur’an
by Muhammad Asad
- A Journey through the Holy Qur’anby Yahiya Emerick
- Towards Understanding the Qur’an (Pocket Size)by Syed Abul Ala Maududi
- The Holy Qur’an with English Translation and Commentary (English and Arabic Edition) by Maulana Muhammad Ali
The Raid of the Meccan Caravans
Posted: August 27, 2011 Filed under: Islam Leave a comment »Dr Khalid Blankinship, an Islamic historian and professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, USA, answers a question about the raids on the Meccan Caravans and the reason Muslims engaged in warfare.
Question: If Islam is a religion of peace, why did the Muslims
during the time of Prophet Muhammad engage in so many wars and bloodshed? Why did Prophet Muhammad order the raids and stealing of the Meccan caravans?
Dr. Khalid Blankenship’s response:
The Prophet (SAAS) and the early Muslim community in al-
Madinah did engage in warfare against the Makkan Quraysh, but it was based on causes and was not unprovoked. It arose primarily out of the expulsion of the Muslims from Makkah and the confiscation of their property, which traditionally was a common and widely-accepted cause for war. Indeed, Qur’an 22: 39-40 specifically gives this as the reason for the original permission to fight and states that the Muslims were persecuted by the Makkan Quraysh only on account of their religion.
The Muslim tradition has largely preferred to portray the migration or hijrah to al-Madinah as a voluntary migration, but the Qur’an is unambiguous on this point, clearly saying that the Muslims were expelled (Qur’an 2:191, 217; 3:195; 60:1, 8-9) and their property was confiscated (Qur’an 59:8). This even includes the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS), who was also driven out, according to Qur’an 9:40 and 47:13 (17:76 refers to an earlier threat). Elsewhere, the Muslims are told not to be agressors (Qur’an 2:190, 193; 5:2). When the Muslim Muhajirun arrived in al-Madinah, they were thus destitute.
Although the generosity of the Madinan Ansar supported the Muhajirun at first, despite the general poverty of al-Madinah and Arabia at that time (Qur’an 59:8-9), the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) knew that the Muhajirun would have to support themselves, and that goal seemed best and most morally achievable by recovering what was theirs by raiding the caravans of the Quraysh, starting with the raid at Nakhlah in the year 1/623, when the first blood was shed, the incident referred to in Qur’an 2:217.
After that, the rest of the wars developed out of this initial wrong done to the Muslims by the pagan Makkan Quraysh. The Muslims were also threatened with expulsion by the Madinan hypocrites according to Qur’an 63:8, a verse said in the commentaries to describe the situation of the year 4/626, after the Muslim losses in the Battle of Uhud the previous year.
This threat of expulsion also appears in association with the Battle of al-Khandaq or the Ditch in 5/627 (Qur’an 59:11-12), which might help explain some of the events of that campaign. The Quraysh and their allies are said to have been plotting to expel the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) from al-Madinah at different times as well (Qur’an 8:30; 9:13). This is the background of the overcoming and expulsion of the Jewish tribes referred to in 33:26-27 and 59:2-4.
Besides these references in the Qur’an to the Prophet’s (SAAS) life story, there are many other references to expulsions or threatened expulsions as well in the stories of the earlier prophets (AS), including various prophets from Nuh on down (14:13), Lut (7:82; 27:56), Shu`ayb (7:88), Musa (7:110, 123; 20:57, 63; 26:35), Samu’il or Samwil (2:246), and Sulayman (27:37), and even Adam (2:36).
There is also a reference to expulsions in al-Madinah before the arrival of Muhammad (SAAS) and the Muslims (2:85).
While warfare is generally seen as politically incorrect by many today, it should be understood that conditions in ancient Arabia differed, as there was no central government, so that every group of people had to defend itself. The fears of expulsion, which many people remain under even today, were real and ever present, and the consequences went far beyond a mere loss of property. Therefore, whatever our interpretation of these verses that we apply to ourselves today may be, it is not appropriate to judge ancient and medieval peoples by our possibly fleeting contemporary standards.
Also, all of this should be seen in comparison with the content of the Torah of Musa, which contains many bloody episodes that would be politically incorrect by today’s standards, including warfare that is much less arguably defensive than that in the Qur’an, but that does not appear to place any moral burden on the followers of Judaism and Christianity.
17,000 Islamic Attacks since 9-11?
Posted: August 26, 2011 Filed under: Islamophobia Leave a comment »
Purpose of Life: Q&A – Adam Deen
Posted: August 26, 2011 Filed under: Islam, MDI Leave a comment »Well worth watching
Professor of Biology talks about his current evolution research, and why he is skeptical of Darwinian evolution.
Posted: August 20, 2011 Filed under: Evolution Leave a comment »In this interview, Dr. Ralph Seelke shares about his current evolution research, and why he is skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Ralph Seelke received his Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine in 1981, was a postdoctoral researcher at the Mayo Clinic until 1983, and has been an Associate Professor or Professor in the Department of Biology and Earth Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior since 1989. An authority on evolution’s capabilities and limitations in producing new functions in bacteria, Prof. Seelke recently co-authored the science textbook “Explore Evolution: The Case For and Against Neo-Darwinism.”
Hear the fascinating interview here:
http://www.discovery.org/v/341
Martyrs’ funeral – Speech by Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi
Posted: August 19, 2011 Filed under: Islam, The News, Videos Leave a comment »Is God selfish? A Christian-Muslim debate at Speakers Corner
Posted: August 19, 2011 Filed under: Debates, Videos Leave a comment »After the riots, the media sort the heroes from the villains…
Posted: August 12, 2011 Filed under: Islam, The News Leave a comment »and the no.1 media hero is…a Muslim: Tariq Jahan
“I am a Muslim. I believe in divine fate and destiny, and it was his destiny and his fate, and now he’s gone. And may Allah forgive him and bless him,” Jahan said of his 21-year-old son, Haroon, who was deliberately mown down by louts in a car, along with two of his friends.
According to today’s Guardian: ‘Jahan’s faith gives him an explanation, comfort and the strength to come out to face the cameras – probably his first such experience – and say all the right things in his grief. Amazing.’
“A memorial to the millions of people who have suffered at the hands of this cruel god”
Posted: July 30, 2011 Filed under: Christianity Leave a comment »Church in Wales inquiry after rector burns Bible pages
22 July 2011 From BBC News North West Wales
(see a video about this here: BBC © 2011)
The Church in Wales says it is investigating after a Gwynedd rector burnt some pages from the Bible.
The Reverend Geraint ap Iorwerth of St Peter ad Vincula Church, Pennal, also cut up pages from the King James Bible to create an artwork.
Unveiling it at a church event, he said it revealed a “cruel and vile God“.
The Bishop of Bangor said: “Destroying parts of the Bible we don’t like is disrespectful and will offend many people.”
Mr ap Iorwerth told BBC Wales he had burnt scraps of cut up the passages at the public event because he had been making a statement as part of an art experiment.
He said he had had nothing but support from people at the church near Machynlleth, close to the Gwynedd-Powys border.
‘Gobsmacked’
He revealed his controversial piece of art at an event to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.
He said: “I find it highly offensive that people would think I have given my life to serving that type of God and that I would regard the words of the King James Bible as sacred truth.
“I cut out all the nasty bits of that Bible, the language of which is being celebrated all over the place this year, because I don’t think you can separate that language from the God it is representing.
“I was gobsmacked no programmes or articles are representing the cruelty, revenge and hatred of this version of God.”
The artwork, which also contrasts the language of the Bible and the festive greetings of Christmas cards, is mounted on a 9ft by 7ft board.
Mr ap Iorwerth wants to show it in a gallery and also promote it as an alternative Christmas card , because he thinks it will provoke thought and discussion.
He said it is the “most-popular” version of God as cruel that he takes exception to, whereas he thinks more attention should be paid to God’s life-work and the view that “God is love”.
“People have told me they turned away from the real message of Jesus because of this God – that this version put lots of people off him as children.
“My version of God is Jesus, who was pure compassion and unconditional love.
“The King James Bible should be praised for its language but not for the God it represents – the two need to be separated.”
He said he burnt the pages, which were the remaining scraps of those he cut up to make the display, as a “symbol of all the suffering in the world”.
“The point being that some people are more concerned about destroying a few bits of pages than about those who have died after suffering.”
He said he had not yet heard anything of an investigation against him and will be pursuing his own “evangelical” investigation after the summer into “how such a cruel God has so prominent a place in national life”.
‘Wrestle with’
He said he also planned to create a “wall of shame” at the church naming all of God’s “cruel actions”.
The rector claimed “incredible” support from parishioners.
The Bishop of Bangor, Andy John, said destroying the Bible, or passages from it, would cause offence to many.
He said: “I have therefore written to the Reverend Geraint ap Iorwerth and will be investigating the matter further.
“There are parts of the Bible that we struggle to understand today because culturally our life is so far removed from that period in which the Bible was written.
“However, it is not given to us to pick and choose – sometimes the most challenging parts are those which we need to wrestle with most of all.”
David Wood: Answering Oslo
Posted: July 30, 2011 Filed under: Christian terror, MDI, Videos 2 Comments »Christian missionary David Wood was quick to blame Islam and Muslims for the Norway attack, even before any details about the attacker had been released.
Robert Spencer’s hate ideology – a conveyor belt to terrorism?
Posted: July 25, 2011 Filed under: Christian extremism, The News, Violent extremism Leave a comment »The notorious anti-Islam hater Robert Spencer was named by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik as an intellectual influence on his thinking. The public need to know if Robert Spencer’s ideology is, for some, a conveyor belt to terrorism.
From today’s Guardian:
The American anti-Muslim agitator Robert Spencer was namechecked when Breivik listed his intellectual influences on Dokument.no, along with a pseudonymous Norwegian who calls himself Fjordman and the equally pseudonymous Bat Ye’or, who invented the Eurabia conspiracy. Spencer, along with his sidekick, Pamela Geller, was responsible for the campaign against the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”.
Obviously these people cannot be held responsible for the use to which their ideas were put. No matter how deranged a killer’s ideas, he still needs a deranged personality to put them into action. But anyone tempted to take them seriously should consider what were almost Breivik’s last words on Document.no: “For the last three years I have been working full time on a cultural conservative work which will help to develop and market these political ideas.”
That “cultural conservative work” was the PDF he mailed out as he set off on his murder spree.
Loonwatch.com comments:
When you preach bigotry and fear on a daily basis, don’t be surprised when one of your followers takes the next logical step. But Robert Spencer has a reason to feign surprise and indignation over what his hatred has incited, as the link between his hate-writing and this act of terrorism becomes clear: Richard Silverstein notes that the right-wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik cited Robert Spencer 46 times in his manifesto. He was clearly quite the fan. This certainly seems to be right-wing anti-Muslim terrorism inspired by the king of Islamophobia himself, Robert Spencer.
Islam and Englishness: Are they contradictory?
Posted: July 12, 2011 Filed under: Islam, lectures, MDI, Videos Leave a comment »I delivered a lecture at the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford (MECO) in March 2011 which caused much debate and led to a fascinating discussion between controversialist modernist Dr Taj Hargey, myself and the audience.
Enjoy!
My Fellow American
Posted: June 22, 2011 Filed under: Islam, Videos Leave a comment »Elizabeth Potter of Unity Productions Foundation contacted us at MDI to share her most recent production which aims to counter Islamophobia and demonisation of Muslims – which we are proud to share on our website. If you are American please forward this excellent video – and even if you are not American forward it on anyway as it contains important lessons for all peoples about the mindless hate campaigns perpetrated against Muslim communities living in Western countries.
Visit their site: My Fellow American
Judging by the Injil
Posted: June 19, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Islam Leave a comment »The U.S.A today has seen a sharp rise in incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim feeling. Expressions of such feeling have been noticeable in Mosque bombings, arson, violence towards Muslims, discrimination at work, and even murder. The sources of such negative feelings come from a number of traditionally intolerant sources; the right-wing neo-conservatives, radicals, white supremacists, and fundamentalist Christians.
In their expressions of hate towards Muslims, these groups invoke alarmist, paranoid conspiracy-theory narratives of ‘Islamisation of the USA’ or ‘stealth Jihad’ by what amounts to only 2% of the population.
Militant fundamentalist Christians, have added a further layer to this narrative, and combined an aggressive concept of Christian proselytisation , to wage ‘Spiritual warfare’ on non-believers (which is a cross between the Crusades and Psy-Ops worthy of a Cold war regime). This usually involves a number of methods, ranging from publishing aggressive and skewed articles online, to video propaganda, and disturbing non-Christian community events with loud speakers, large insulting signs and scattering leaflets amongst crowds of ‘heathens’.
Although we have come to hear of the more infamous groups of militant Christians, such as Westboro Baptist Church, others, of a more obscure variety exist, such as Acts 17 Ministries – infamous for yearly disrupting the Arab cultural festival in Dearborn Michigan. This year, they intend to mass distribute a number of anti-Islamic propaganda leafets, focusing on a number of Islamic theological beliefs; in an attempt to ‘counter the spread of Sharia law’.
One such article they intend to distribute, concerns attacking the Islamic belief that Jesus (a.s) is not divine. In order to achieve this, they resort to straw manning the interpretation of Quranic quotes which tell Christians to study their own Bible to see the truth of Islam. The militant Christians claim that it is the Bible itself which ‘clearly’ and ‘uncontrovertibly ‘proves’ the divinity of Jesus, and therefore Islam is wrong in it’s claims, and Muhammed (saw) is a false prophet.
David Wood of Acts 17 Ministries wrote and produced this little pamphlet. You can read it here. Let’s scratch the surface, and put this argument to the test…
God in his Word, the Holy Quran ( 5:46-47), tells us that:
‘And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those earlier prophets, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious.’
‘Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein: for they who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!’
Furthermore we read in Quran 3:3-4:
Step by step has He bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, setting forth the truth which confirms whatever there still remains of earlier revelations: for it is He who has bestowed from on high the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, as a guidance unto mankind, and it is He who has bestowed upon man the standard by which to discern the true from the false.
Behold, as for those who are bent on denying God’s messages – grievous suffering awaits them: for God is almighty, an avenger of evil.
It is important to bear in mind that the Gospel frequently mentioned in the Qur’an is not identical with what is known today as the Four Gospels, but refers to an original, since lost, revelation bestowed upon Jesus and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name of Evangelion (“Glad Tidings”), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based. It was probably the source from which the Synoptic Gospels derived much of their material and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus. The fact of its having been lost and forgotten is alluded to in the Qur’an in 5:14
Quran 5:14:
And likewise, from those who say, “Behold, we are Christians.” We have accepted a solemn pledge: and they, too, have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind – wherefore We have given rise among them to enmity and hatred, to last until Resurrection Day and in time God will cause them to understand what they have contrived.
Thus the Qur’an elliptically rejects the Christian’s claim of being true followers of Jesus: for, by wrongfully elevating him to the status of divinity they have denied the very essence of his message.
Furthermore, by their going astray from the genuine teachings of Jesus – and thus from true faith in God – is the innermost cause of the enmity and hatred which has so often set the so-called Christian nations against one another and led to unceasing wars and mutual persecution.
So in light of this Quranic teaching Muslims are entirely justified in asking Christians ‘What did Jesus say about himself?’ ‘Where did Jesus claim to be God?’
Our Early Sources of Information about Jesus
Most Christians who are not familiar with biblical scholarship probably think that knowing about the historical Jesus is a relatively straightforward matter. We have four gospels in the New Testament, so to know what Jesus said and did we should read the gospels. So what is the problem?
The problem in part is that the gospels are full of discrepancies and were written decades after Jesus’ ministry by authors who had not themselves witnessed any of the events of Jesus’ life.
But it gets worse. For honest readers notice not just the occasional contradiction or error in the New Testament; there are the existence of forgeries claiming apostolic authorship and containing fake eye-witness testimony (such as the notorious Second Letter of ‘Peter’); the troubling absence of the doctrine of the Trinity; the worrying interpolations/corruptions that have been discovered at crucial points in the NT: the so-called ‘Johannine Comma’ of 1 John 5:7 is clearly Trinitarian in teaching but is known to be a much later insertion by a Christian scribe; the absence of any resurrection appearances in the earliest gospel of Mark (check it out!); the fabrication of stories about Jesus (the famous story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was not part of the gospel but added much later by an unknown scribe). All these facts are understandably deeply worrying for Christians, for how do we really know what is authentic and what is the inauthentic material in the NT? And to make matters worse – what about the unknown interpolations and corruptions that probably exist but still lie undetected?
But surely the most troubling phenomenon in the New Testament must be the difference between the Synoptic gospels and John. Most Christians are serenely unaware of the problem because they are not taught to notice what is evident to all serious students of the Bible.
Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
In John, Jesus speaks with an unclouded consciousness of a divine existence with God from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended as a historical portrayal, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the Christological claims of John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It is hardly likely.
Consider the following
James D. G. Dunn, one of the leading moderate New Testament scholars around and no “anti-supernatural liberal,” writes:
Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics. It is worth noting briefly the factors which have been considered of enduring significance on this point. One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking (much more discursive and theological, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptics). As Strauss had already pointed out, this style is consistent, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of the Baptist, as indeed of 1 John. The inference is inescapable that the style is that of the Evangelist rather than that of Jesus. Probably most important of all, in the Synoptics Jesus’ principal theme is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom hardly features and the discourses are largely vehicles for expressing Jesus’ self-consciousness and self-proclamation. Had the striking ‘I am’ self-assertions of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any Evangelist have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics do? On the whole, then, the position is unchanged: John’s Gospel cannot be regarded as a source for the life and teaching of Jesus of the same order as the Synoptics.
(James D. G. Dunn, Christianity In The Making Vol. 1, Jesus Remembered, 2003, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 165-166.)
Other conservative Christian scholars who have similar types of verdicts to offer regarding the historicity of the gospel of John include: Bruce Stein, Craig A Evans and Martin Hengel, to name a few.
So when we consider the synoptic gospels on the one hand and John’s gospel on the other, it is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents, and there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50 per cent of what he said and another one the other 50 per cent, with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years scholars have had to choose. They have almost unanimously, and I think entirely correctly, concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic gospels and that John represents an advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them.
So what did Jesus reportedly say of himself and the important question of eternal life in our earliest gospel?
Jesus in the Earliest Gospel
Mark chapter 10 reads:
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money* to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
I invite you to consider the following
1) Jesus, as a humble Jew, denies that goodness comes from himself: only God is good. Ergo, Jesus is making clear that he is not God.
2) According to Jesus we are saved by obeying the commandments of God (note the striking contrast to Paul’s gospel about Jesus)
3) But in this particular encounter the man lacked one thing (only) that blocked him from eternal life: his riches. Jesus advises him to ’go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven’ so the man will receive his heavenly reward as a result of selling his possessions. After that, he is invited to follow Jesus. Note carefully the sequence.
4) This passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels) who changed Jesus words to remove Jesus’ denial that he is good/God:
Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)
And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’
Now let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question in Romans 10:9:
If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
The differences are startling. Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah. As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus sees his faithfulness to God expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah.
Mark 2:5-7 and the forgiveness of sins
The point can be easily missed. At first the issue seems to be Christological – ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?; ‘…that you might know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…‘ (2.7,10). But that is a dubious interpretation. What Jesus actually says is, ‘Your sins are forgiven‘ – something the priest could say in the Temple to everyone who had brought a sin offering. Note too that the phrase ‘the Son of Man‘ evokes no comment, it was clearly not seen as a claim to exulted or divine status by the crowd (indeed in Aramaic idiom the phrase means ‘man’). In the parallel story in Matt 9.8 the crowd ‘glorified God who had given such authority to men’.
Furthermore, John the Baptist presumably pronounced sins forgiven (see Mark 1.4/Luke 3.3) without apparently provoking any accusation of breaching the divine prerogative. Also in the Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran, Nabonidus says ‘an exorcist pardoned my sins’, where human mediation of divine forgiveness is clearly implied (4QprNab4).
The gospels also narrate that the disciples were given authority to forgive the sins of others – see Matthew 16.19; 18.18 and John 20.23 (‘if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’)
The Light
My comments re the historical problems surrounding the gospel of John apply to all David Wood’s quotes from that gospel. I will not repeat them here. But let us not forget that according to Matthew 5 Jesus taught his disciples,
“You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
So the true followers of Jesus are light to the world - just as Jesus was.
The Final Judge
David Wood is correct to say that only God will be the Judge on the Day of Judgment but is wrong to draw the conclusion that Jesus was therefore God. That is not how the apostles understood Jesus’ role and status. If we survey the apostles teaching in Acts (assuming for the sake of argument its’ authenticity) we read in Peter’s very first sermon the following:
“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, was a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know” Acts 2:22
‘Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah’ Acts 2:36
And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. Acts 4:22
He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. Acts 10:42
Now admittedly this is not Islamic teaching but it suggests that Jesus was a man who:
i) did miracles by the power of God
ii) was made lord and messiah by God
iii) was believed to be the messiah by his first followers
iv) as a man was appointed to be judge of the living and the dead by God.
Nothing of Peter’s teaching in Acts suggests that Jesus was believed to be Yahweh or God Incarnate or the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus was a man, a servant like David and the Messiah.
So, in conclusion, we read the Word that God speaks to the Christians of the world, with a clear warning:
People of the book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’ – stop this, that is better for you – God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. (Qur’an, 4:171)
© Paul Williams June 2011
How Can We find Forgiveness From a Holy God?
Posted: June 7, 2011 Filed under: Debates, Islam, Videos 1 Comment »2011 Dubai Muslim-Christian Dialogue
All 6 videos are a must see.
Debate features Muslim Apologist, Bassam Zawadi in discussion with Christian speaker Thabiti Anyabwile. This dialogue was held on March 6, 2011 with speakers Thabiti Anyabwile and Bassam Zawadi. It took place in Knowledge Village Auditorium in Dubai, UAE and was sponsored by GDS Knowledge Consultants and The Christian Fellowship Club of University of Wollongong in Dubai.
MDI praises such debates as these, not just for the discussion topic, but also because it demonstrates that intellectual debate between different religions (which would involve criticism of Islam by non-Muslims) is not only exclusive to the Western world, and never has been. Muslims have been holding debates such as these for the last 1400 years, from the time of the Christians of Najran criticising Islam freely in the Prophet Muhammed (saaw)’s mosque (in the presence of Muhammed himself), to the famous public debates of Baghdad between Atheists, Christians and Muslims throughout the middle ages.
Christianity and Islam – Can they Tolerate each other? Sami Zaatari vs Jay Smith
Posted: May 27, 2011 Filed under: MDI Leave a comment »MDI is now set to release a series of previously unbroadcast videos of our debates. Here is the first. We welcome your comments and feedback. Enjoy!
Islamophobe storms out during historic Cambridge Debate on Islam
Posted: May 23, 2011 Filed under: MDI Leave a comment »
Can Liberalism Tolerate Islam?
Posted: May 17, 2011 Filed under: Islam, Militant Secularism Leave a comment »Oslo Litteraturhuset, 20 March 2011
Must one be liberal to belong to the West? For all the polite multiculturalist denials, this question is being put to us more and more insistently. The European Union, as it struggles to articulate a common cultural as well as economic vision, regularly toys with grand statements about Europe as a vision of human community, whose success underpins the universal model now being urged upon the rest of humanity. European liberals, with their Enlightenment, civil society, democratic institutions, and human rights codes, sometimes seem to self-define as a secular Messiah, willing and ready to save the world. To resist is, by implication, to align oneself with an unregenerate, sinful humanity.
Yet we Europeans are in fact in the middle of a difficult argument. We are constantly quarrelling with ourselves over definitions of belonging. We can unite to build an Airbus, but will we really unite around a moral or cultural ideal? What, after all, are the exact historic grounds for European cultural unity? And – this now looks like the continent’s greatest concern – how can Muslims fit in?
Perhaps it helps if we look at Europe’s distant roots. Homer, long ago, told us how Europa, the daughter of the King of Phoenicia, was abducted by Zeus, duly ravished, and borne off to the island of Crete, where she gave birth to the Europeans. There is something emblematic and transgressive about this myth of origin: a Lebanese maiden torn from the breast of Asia and deposited in a corner of the continent which eventually bore her name. The beginning of our story is a violent European raid upon Asia, an unhappy immigration, and a confiscation of identity.
Perhaps we can trace back this far – and Europe’s literature in fact begins with Homer – Europe’s ambiguity about its self and its values. But Europa only finds herself, and discovers the limits of her soul and body, long after this classical prologue. For the Romans, it was the Mediterranean which defined the core of their terrain and their commercial and religious life. Rome equally embraced the European, African and Asian shores of the Middle Sea. But while it saw itself as superior, it rarely sought to impose its philosophy or social values on others. So we will hesitate to accept the common cliché that in our time, ancient history has been reborn: America is Rome, Europe is Athens, while Islam is an endlessly troublesome Judea. Ancient Rome and Athens had no systematic programme of universalizing their values, even within the bounds of their political sway, and still less did they encourage other nations to accept their social beliefs.
When Islam appeared in the seventh century, the African and Asian shores were lost. Thrown back on its own resources, Europe sought to define itself, then as now, as the prolongation of the rather small remnant of antiquity that the Saracens missed. From that time on, it developed ideas of its unique and universal social rightness.
The historian Fernand Braudel insists that it was the electric shock of the Battle of Poitiers in 732, when the Arab and Berber advance into France was finally stemmed, which gave the Franks and hence the Europeans their sense of self. Charlemagne’s capital of Aachen seemed symbolically to straddle both banks of the Rhine, making a nonsense of the old Roman borders. The German barbarians who brought down Rome, and who now ruled in France and Germany as they had ruled in Italy and Spain, now claimed to be heirs of the imperium. The almost obsessive cult of the Latin language and classical mythology which characterised European education until well into the twentieth century shows how anxious the Germanic and other ‘European’ peoples were to see themselves, rather than the Saracens who controlled most of the Mediterranean, as heirs to the Roman Empire. When the Ottomans captured and sacked Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmet II claimed the title of Roman emperor, but Europe rejected this absolutely. Rather as the Bible rejects Ishmael in favour of Isaac, so Europe has been united in nothing so much as its rejection of Islam’s claims to legitimate participation in the blessings bestowed by antiquity, and by those other patriarchs, Plato and Aristotle.
As a matter of fact – and this is not widely noticed by liberal advocates of European uniqueness – Islam was for much of its history the principal heir of Hellenism, geographically and intellectually. Yet Europe will no more see Islam as a rightful inheritor of Athens than it will allow Ishmael legitimate authority over Jerusalem. The reason was Christianity. Christian monks saw themselves as the true interpreters of Hellenism, for all their borrowings from Ibn Rushd and Ghazali. Rome, the only remaining Christian metropolis of the classical world, was assumed to be the inheritor of that world’s riches, which had moved West, rather than remaining in their place of origin in Antioch, Ephesus, Cyrene and Alexandria. The Saracen was an interloper, an upstart. Thanks to the same furor Teutonicus which baffled and brought down Rome, the Franks kept the false inheritors at bay, and even, during the Crusades, found themselves united as Europeans in a counter-attack that brought Jerusalem again into Christian hands. From that time until the present, Europe, followed by its children in the ethnically-cleansed Americas, has been sure of its sole proper possession not only of ancient Semitic prophecy, but also of the legacy of Athens with which it coexisted in such a complex and often unstable marriage.
An older Orientalism will claim that Islam, the major Semitism, sniffed briefly at Greece but then turned away from it. This is the notion of the theologian al-Ghazali sounding the death-knell of Greek philosophy in the world of Islam. Hellenism, according to the likes of Leo Strauss, could only find room in the European inn; Islam, with its burden of scriptural literalism, treated it as a resident alien at best. This applies not only to metaphysics, but also to political theory – Plato’s brief Muslim apotheosis on the pages of al-Farabi. Strauss has had many admirers: ominously, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were among them, together with various thinkers on Europe’s new Islamophobic right. And Pope Benedict’s famous 2007 lecture at Regensburg likewise seemed to present the Muslims as improper heirs to the classical legacy of rationality and rights which, according to this heir of the Holy Office, is Europe’s alone. But the best recent scholarship, such as the work of Robert Wisnovsky, has blown this apart: we are now more likely to see Juwayni, Ghazali and Razi as the great advocates of a selective but profound internalising of Greek reason. Greek ethics lives on powerfully on the pages of Miskawayh, al-Raghib al-Isfahani, and al-Ghazali. In political thought, particularly, the old themes also lived on in manuals of statecraft studied carefully by Ottoman, Safavid and Moghul emperors and their grand viziers. And if Plato was modified drastically by the Sira, that was no bad thing, given that Plato has so often been an enemy of the open society.
The internalising of ancient philosophy, including those strands from which modern liberal thinking ultimately takes its origin, did happen differently in Islam and in the Western world. That is one reason why Athens, in Europe, finally defeated Jerusalem, and philosophy of an increasingly secular bent defeated theology. Aquinas, whose Summa Contra Gentiles was written to help secure Christian theology in lands conquered from Muslims, proposed a symbiosis of philosophy and scripture which has, for most Europeans, now outlived its credibility. The same Christian interval in Europe which laid claim to the classical age by virtue, strangely perhaps, of the overlaps visible in the Greek New Testament, has faltered, to be replaced by vibrant paganisms, or an often militant secular officialdom. Hence the decision by the drafters of the European Constitution to include a mention of Thucydides, and to pass over the Christian centuries in silence.
A new class of triumphalist atheists – Richard Dawkins, Anthony Grayling and others – now assails faith for its inability to deliver a peaceful and just society. Ethical liberal arguments against religion are now much more commonly heard than older objections to faith grounded in the problem of evil, or the improbability of the Book of Genesis. Probably this began in the late 19th century, when all reasonable people seemed to oppose Pope Pius the Ninth’s Syllabus of Errors, which anathematised the Enlightenment notions of religious freedom and the separation of church from state. As article 80 of the Syllabus proclaims, one may be excommunicated for holding that ‘the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism, and modern civilization’.
Since the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, such anathemas are hard to imagine, and even the Vatican is reinventing itself as an advocate of precisely the liberal opinions – or many of them – that a century ago would have resulted in the withholding of the sacraments and hence a sentence of eternal damnation. Its opposition to the death penalty, and its support for religious freedom, are two iconic examples. Liberalism’s triumph is so complete that many today can hardly recall the old and fierce Christian opposition to it.
Thanks to such capitulations, the Europe that historically made itself a unit by keeping Muslims at bay, or by expelling them, in Spain, France, Sicily and the Balkans, has now substantially let go of the distinctiveness of the religious vision of society that allowed that to happen. Liberalism, whose crooked genealogy stretches back to distant concerns in ancient Athens, and whose Biblical tributaries, claimed by some Americans, are perhaps only imaginary, has replaced the older theocratic thinking, which lingers on only in fringe rightwing and royalist circles. Secularity is largely the invention of the continent which was the cradle of Christian monarchism; today, indeed, in a world where there may be secularism abroad, but not secularity, it is almost a European monopoly. God’s continent has been transformed into the crucible of an increasingly assertive materialism.
Partly for this reason, as the desk pilots in Brussels think ahead, they know that the future expansion of their Union must always be to the East, not the South. The drang nach Osten of Euroland may within thirty years bring Europe, intelligibly enough, to Vladivostok, but Tangiers, only twenty miles across the sea which in classical times was a thoroughfare and not a barrier, is generally admitted to be psychologically a far foreign land. Hence we find that today, as regularly in the Christian past, Europe’s arguments about itself, whether right-wing or libertarian, usually end in terms of its relationship with its significant Other, the Saracen and Turkish realm.
Following Europe’s breaking of its own bounds after the great geographical discoveries, the Islamic world was progressively made to submit to European patterns of government and economic interest. Today, the elites in the postcolonial Muslim world are, substantially, Europeans themselves, rather than adherents of local values. Sometimes their fervent dislike of the indigenous makes them seem more royal than the king. With such converts Brussels has no significant quarrel, although it regularly puzzles over the deep corruption and often the cruelty of the westernised classes in the former colonies. But dealing with those regimes is no more than a human rights issue. The elites must adhere to the constitutional norms, as well as the secular forms, of Europe. Yet as the Eurocrat is nervously aware, and as current events show, those elites can resemble a fragile skin stretched over a sea of cultural difference. The Muslim world, perhaps the non-Western world, can look like a geologist’s model of the Earth. The planet, not far down, is alive and moving, a mass of liquid magma; but on the surface, plates of congealed rock uneasily coexist. Tensions between, say, Morocco and Algeria, are tensions between the cold, Europeanised classes, not the often passionately religious populations beneath, for whom the boundaries drawn by past generations of colonial mapmakers do not correspond at all to local linguistic and ethnic difference. Secular elites, claiming liberal values, hold down a mass of illiberal religious sentiment. The holding-down can be so violent that on occasion traumatised terrorists can emerge to horrify the world, and to confirm liberals in their uneasy support for the regimes.
This tension, between the autocratic elites supported by European liberal governments, and the still substantially religious masses with their desire to enter the public square, has now become so intense that the lava is emerging in very many Muslim states. The result is often a type of crisis for the liberal conscience, or a sudden and carefully-timed volte face: as we saw when on January 14 of this year, the French president offered President Ben Ali of Tunisia a contingent of riot police to shore up his rule, while the next day, when it became clear that the popular uprising had triumphed, France refused Ben Ali the right even to enter its airspace. Des qu’on a des ennuis, elle n’est plus votre amie …
As they panic over demography and immigration, Europe’s theorists are well aware of this. Hence the difficulty of, for instance, the current European debate over Turkish membership of the European Union. The Erdogan government presents liberals with a paradox. Less secular than its predecessors, it is more committed to human rights and democratic pluralism, and is keen to curb the military’s projection in the political realm. The generals, with their tight-lipped laicism, claim to be the guardians of Ataturk’s project to recreate Turkey in Europe’s image; yet Europe is no longer the nationalist, often fascistic continent it was in the 1920s and 1930s when Kemalism took shape. Hence the conundrum for the Eurocrats. Many European liberal statesmen, particularly in the core ‘Charlemagne’ states of France and Germany, oppose Turkish membership on grounds that are clearly to do with Europe’s ancient habit of self-definition as something that, ultimately, is not Muslim. Europe may be economically inclusive, and passionately liberal and libertarian, but ultimately, to be itself, it must be exclusive of non-Christians, and of Muslims above all. The old Crusading cry of ‘Christians are right, and pagans are wrong,’ has been modified by replacing the ‘Christians’ with gay activists and human rights commissioners.
It is not impossible that Turkey will be admitted, perhaps after two or more decades. Yet the current proposals envisage Turkey’s exclusion from the Amsterdam Treaty in respect of Turkey’s Muslim population. EU citizens will be able to live in Turkey, but to allow Turks to emigrate freely to Europe would be too much for electorates to contemplate. This, currently, seems the kind of compromise that Ankara will be compelled to accept. Other arrangements with Muslim areas such as Albania, Bosnia, and perhaps Azerbaijan, may well impose the same condition. A Europe increasingly at ease with minaret and niqab bans will be happy to see such odd-handedness as right and proper.
Having thus charted our odd situation, let us deal with the question. To be Europeans, must we be liberals? Does liberal Europe’s insistence when drawing its outer borders on the partial or total exclusion of Islam have implications for internal definitions of belonging? If we bother to look at the bland Euro banknotes, the product of extended searches in the 90s for a shared European symbol, we find that the key symbol that was finally used is the outline of the continent itself, which blurs into nothingness wherever it reaches places inhabited by Muslims. The vague bridge symbols are drawn from ‘seven ages’ of European culture and design, but naturally there was no risk of annoying Europeans with any trace of a Moorish arch. For Brussels officialdom, there is implicitly no more appropriate symbol of Europe than one which indicates non-Muslimness. What, therefore, does a European Muslim think about himself or herself when using this currency? Does a conscious exclusion at the frontiers on religious grounds have implications for internal solidarity and belonging? Must liberal Europe create an internal firewall against Muslim migrants and their bafflingly religious progeny?
Despite all the brave talk of European unity, the reassuring reality on the ground is that there is no consensus at all. The French model, rooted in Enlightenment anticlericalism, is absolutely exclusive of religious affiliation of any kind from its sense of belonging. This is not just about Islam: it was made clear more than a century ago in the Republic’s response to the Syllabus of Errors: a law was passed preventing priests from mentioning the Pope’s document from the pulpits. Thus was a process established whereby liberal secularity could win victories over freedom of speech. And Catholicism, though the victim of deep anticlericalism, was at least seen as indigenous. In the republic’s more recent travails with Islam, memories of Crusades and the dirty war in Algeria have made the exclusion of Muslimness in the name of Republican laicity particularly easy and emphatic. The broad-based consensus among liberals that women who wear the niqab should be arrested by the police is only the most recent example of this.
In fact, it is probably the case that the so-called far-right parties, such as Mirine Le Pen’s Fronte Nationale, are in fact not far to the right of the political spectrum at all. They are best seen as coercive liberal parties, their social and fiscal policies placing them somewhere in the centre-right of the political spectrum, but so passionate about the unique truth of liberalism that they seek to punish those who fail to comply with present liberal social beliefs. An example would be Geert Wilders, perhaps Holland’s most popular politician. Wilders is in most key respects somewhat to the left of centre politically. But so passionate is he about liberalism that he wishes to impose a 1000 euro annual tax on hijab wearers, ban the sale of the Qur’an, and forbid the construction of new mosques. In Switzerland, too, surveys indicate that the current ban on minaret construction is more likely to be supported by left-leaning voters, than by voters on the traditional right.
It may turn out that just as Europe defines its natural boundaries as coterminous with the frontier with Islam, that its emerging definitions of citizenship, and the various tests applied to those seeking citizenship, will engage primarily with Islam as the significant alternative, as the model for what is un-European and unacceptable. A good example is the 76-page manual which guides officialdom in assessing applications for German citizenship. Formal citizenship tests in Germany include questions about freedom of religion, sexual orientation, and the status of women, to allow officials to exclude individuals whose social beliefs are considered to conflict with the liberal mainstream. In some provinces, such as Hesse, the Muslim-specific questions are very insistent. For instance: ‘Should a woman be allowed to appear in public without a male relative’? And a question in Baden-Wurttemberg asks: ‘Imagine that your adult son comes to you and says he is homosexual and plans to live with another man. How do you react?’ Another, predictably, asks: ‘What do you think if a man is married to two women at the same time?’ And again: ‘ In Germany, sport and swim classes are part of the normal school curriculum. Would you allow your daughter to participate?’
The regulations give officials the right even to revoke citizenship if a very conservative religious orientation is suspected, or if a citizen’s subsequent opinions or behaviour indicate that he or she lied when taking the test. No conservatives will be allowed to get in under the radar; if they do, their passports may be confiscated and they will be deported. According to Eren Unsal, of the Turkish Union, ‘these tests are presupposing, negative, and anti-Islamic. We’re seeing a more restrictive immigration policy whose face is anti-Muslim.’ And another Muslim representative even says, ‘The constitutional assumption of innocence no longer applies to Muslims.’
Such Muslim objections were generally brushed aside by German commentators, until the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung published a leaked internal memo from the Interior Ministry sent to immigration officials. According to this document, immigration authorities should have what it calls ‘general suspicion’ about the loyalty of Muslims to Germany. It goes on to explain that ‘inner devotion to Germany’ should automatically be doubted in the case of Muslim applicants for citizenship. The leaked government guidelines then go on to say: ‘Europeans, Americans and citizens of other countries who are otherwise free from suspicion should not come into contact with the test.’
A further example of liberal intervention is provided by the German government’s attempts to create a class of Muslim religious leaders whose values conform to those of the country’s liberal majority. The government set up the country’s first imam training programme at the University of Münster, to promote this liberal agenda, but appointed as the programme’s director the historian Sven Kalisch, whose books claim that the Prophet Muhammad did not exist. The four main Muslim organisations in Germany withdrew from the programme in protest, drawing criticism from the government for alleged ‘conservative-fundamentalist tendencies’. In this case, however, some liberals did agree that to appoint a man who did not believe in the existence of the Prophet to the directorship of an imam-training programme was probably a misjudgement on the part of the authorities. As with the Muslim-test, the Münster experiment generated not only resentment, but a good deal of mirth at the expense of liberal interventionists.
Overall, in Germany, deep volkisch impulses are quietly being reignited, dressed up in the language of liberalism, rather as Nazism in the 1930s justified itself to the unobservant as a kind of socialism. Just as the debates which led to the Nuremberg laws were preceded by passionate debates about true and pure Germanness, so too the far-right assumptions are percolating into the mainstream. In March 2011, the Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich announced: ‘To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history’, thereby invoking perhaps the most ancient theme in German self-understanding. The old ‘Semite within’, obliterated under the Third Reich, has now been replaced by the ancient Semite ante portas, who has now acquired citizenship, but can, in Friedrich’s view, never belong.
In France, as Muslims generally know, the liberal campaign to restrict Islamic practice, sometimes supported and sometimes opposed by the right wing, has generated an interesting paradox no less informative than that produced by bungling Germans. Vehemently defending the right, in 1989, of a publisher to print a French translation of Salman Rushdie’s novel the Satanic Verses, in 1994 the French government enforced a series of interdictions which threaten with imprisonment anyone found in possession of the booklets of the South African writer Ahmed Deedat. Those who have read his pamphlets may find this strange, since he never advocates violence of any kind; but liberal France is clear: the law of 31 May 1994 described his book Jesus in Islam as likely to produce ‘des dangers pour l’ordre public’, because of their ‘violently anti-Western tone and their incitement to racial hatred’. Muslims timidly pointed out the contradiction, but the liberal establishment was clear: Deedat is dangerous, and Muslims who own his booklets must be punished.
The United Kingdom, which would not dream of banning Deedat, is generally more cautious in its attempts to encourage liberal beliefs among its minorities. But the recent British Ofsted assessment of the poor quality of ‘citizenship’ training in faith-based secondary schools may indicate the shape of things to come. Even without the Muslims, Ofsted has its work cut out for it. ‘Citizenship’ has been part of the National Curriculum for only ten years, and Ofsted confirms that teaching of this rather numinous subject is extremely patchy across the board; in fact, it is said to be the worst-taught subject in the nation’s schools. So bad is the situation that one in ten pupils in Britain apparently do not even know what citizenship classes are, even though they have attended them. Few engage actively with the liberal issues raised in citizenship training. The reason seems to be the general apathy towards politics and ideology current among many teenagers, the result, perhaps, of the escapist content of mass youth entertainment, together with larger social perceptions that old definitions of sovereignty and national selfhood are being inexorably eroded by globalisation and the Internet. Only 64 percent of pupils nationwide identify themselves as ‘British’.
In the Muslim schools, where citizenship training is apparently in even greater disarray, Ofted says: ‘We must not allow recognition of diversity to become apathy in the face of any challenge to our coherence as a nation. We must be intolerant of intolerance.’
Here, I think, the official finger rests on the Achilles heel of secular liberal ethics. If we must be intolerant of intolerance, then can liberalism tolerate anything other than itself? If Europe defines citizenship in terms of adherence to a set moral template, with all else defined as intolerable, how can Europe ever positively experience real difference, which more often than not is bound up with good, or bad, religion?
An icon of European exclusiveness was supplied in 2004 when the Italian politician Rocco Buttiglione was forced to resign as a European commissioner when it emerged that he supported the Vatican’s line on homosexuality. Despite his insistence that his belief in the sinfulness of the practice would not affect the decisions he took in public life, the consensus of European officialdom obliged him to resign. The Italian Justice Minister, Roberto Castelli, objected in a futile way, by calling the ban ‘a decision which shows the real face of Europe, a face which we do not like. It’s fundamentalist, which is absolutely not on.’ But his view provoked only frowns.
Muslims have watched with concern this striking proof of how categorically Europe has walked away from its traditional Christian values and authorities. It is interesting, also, as proof that European citizenship appears to be a matter of conformity to certain sacrosanct social beliefs, in this case, the historically anti-Christian belief that conscientious opposition to homosexual practice is so wicked that those who hold such beliefs must be excluded from public office. As Buttiglione himself remarked, ‘The new soft totalitarianism which is advancing wants to be a state religion. It is an atheistic, nihilistic religion, but it is a religion that is obligatory for all.’
It is possible that this imposition of social beliefs will become more intense, despite its apparent clash with principles of freedom of conscience. In 2009, Nick Clegg (now the British Deputy Prime Minister), said that children attending faith schools should be taught that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless’. Special lessons, he opined, should be required of such schools to encourage tolerance for this practice.
It seems reasonable to predict that the concretisation of such social beliefs and their imposition through law and a media monoculture will continue. Many will recognise in this a reversion to historic European norms, alien to Islam, of imposing a standard belief pattern on the king’s subjects. Cuius regio, eius religio. Liberalism of a particular socially prescriptive kind seems to be filling the void left by religion, and, Europe being the historic land of the divine right of kings, religion here is often more closely bound up with politics than in traditional Muslim states. In this case, the condemnation of sodomy functions as a blasphemy, or a ‘speech violation’. Other blasphemies include, for instance, the idea that men and women are suited for different tasks, that the death penalty is a just punishment for murder, that parents may use corporal punishment to discipline their children, and that unbelievers are less pleasing to God than believers. The list is quite a long one, and it seems to be growing.
Societies hate value-vacuums. After the Second World War, Europe and America went very different ways regarding truth: Europe lapsed into what the philosopher Heidegger called gelassenheit – just letting things be, a mood which eased the transition to postmodernism. America, whose heartland did not suffer RAF bombings or Nazi death camps, remained confident, in a rather simple way, about God and family values, allowing a continuing religious alternative to the secular monoculture. But as the European continent increasingly defines itself not as the splintered wreckage of war, but as a potentially mighty unit, it needs shared values. Like America, it has fixed on Islam as its significant Other, but while America’s foreign wars are religiously driven, Europe is preoccupied with internal cohesion, framing laws that in America would be strange: to shut the hijab out of sight, to ban minarets, and to prohibit in general the public expression of conservative morality. In other words, the federal and racial unity which in America is brought by external wars against Muslims, is possible in a less jingoistic Europe only by putting Muslims at the centre of an internal war of values.
On both sides of the Atlantic, liberal or religious intolerance of Muslims has now risen to worrying levels, and further restrictive legislation seems possible in many places. 9/11 intensified this atmosphere of inquisition. In the United States, a Cornell University survey concludes that 44% of Americans now support a selective abolition of civil rights for Muslim citizens, and the King Enquiry now underway in Washington may make some recommendations in this regard. Significantly, some liberal and neo-liberal public intellectuals, welcoming the results of this survey, denounce the current American mood of regret over the concentration of Japanese-Americans in camps during the Second World War.
If Europe is once again finding a kind of unity in its allergy to Muslimness, can Muslims find any allies in this landscape? Tariq Ramadan, in his book To be a European Muslim, implies that a marriage is possible with environmentalist and left-wing groups who are dismayed by the rise of anti-immigrant feeling. Pim Fortuyn’s assassin was, after all, a militant left-wing vegetarian who wished to defend Holland’s Muslims from Fortuyn’s plans for a liberal persecution. And many of the emerging British and European Muslim organisations seem to sympathise with Ramadan’s approach. After all, when marching against the invasion of Iraq, or campaigning against arms sales to brutal elites in the Middle East, one usually finds oneself sharing an umbrella with Fabian or CND types, not the Young Conservatives. Hence the popularity of the likes of George Galloway among Muslims.
Such an alliance, however, is likely to be, at best, a tempestuous marriage of convenience. Muslims and the left may converge on Iraq, or Israel, or globalisation, but on domestic matters they stand at opposite poles. The Green movement, and virtually all on the Left, are fiercely pro-homosexual and feminist. It seems clear, then, that European Muslims are unlikely to forge a stable relationship with the Left. Similarly with the environmentalists: Muslims are often forgetful that the roots of the green lobby in Europe are not monotheistic, but often implicitly or explicitly pagan. Nazism was very keen on the environment: Sigrid Hunke, the German feminist and green theorist of the 1930s who is still viewed as a founder of the green movement, was revered by several Nazi ideologues.
Many Muslims, from their vantage-point in Europe’s ghettoes, intuit this correctly. But they then conclude that the true believers by definition have no allies. Some Salafist perspectives, in particular, seem unable to accept the possibility of partnership with non-Muslims. One recalls the embarrassing cases of Shaykh Faisal in Britain, and Anwar al-Awlaki in the United States; whose followers, mesmerised by the slogan of ‘Back to the Qur’an’, had to spring back in dismay when the political views of these preachers reached the media. Yet such paranoia and xenophobia seem both scripturally unnecessary and practically unwise. If Europe continues to secularise, while Europe’s mosques remain full, then Islam is likely, without any planning or even forethought, to become the principal monotheistic energy through much of the continent, a kind of leaven in Europe’s stodgy dough.
Yet we should note that the pressure being brought to bear on Muslim communities relates to social, not doctrinal, beliefs. No-one in Brussels is greatly concerned about Muslim doctrines of the divine attributes, or prophetic intercession; but they do care about whether or not Muslims believe in feminism. This places Muslim believers in a historically new position. It should be possible to forge close friendships with other Europeans who also have the courage to blaspheme against the Brussels magisterium. We may differ with conservative Catholics and Jews over doctrine, but we are all facing very similar challenges to our social vision. Signor Buttiglione could easily have been a Muslim, not a Catholic, martyr.
Here, I believe, a burden of responsibility rests upon the shoulders of Muslim leaders. It is in our interests to seek and hold friends. We are not alone in our conscientious rejection of many liberal orthodoxies. The statement by Bishop Michel Santer of the French church condemning the official punishments imposed on women who wear the niqab is an important sign of the possibility of cooperation. The challenge is going to be for Muslim, Christian and Jewish conservatives to set aside their strong traditional hesitations about other faith communities, and to discover the multitude of things they hold in common. To date, clearly, the interfaith industry has failed to catalyse this, partly because it tends to be directed by liberal religionists. We are more and more willing, it seems, to discuss less and less, and to conform more and more to the moral consensus of a secular and individualistic world.
However an alliance sacrée between orthodox believers in different religions would, I think, deflate the potentially xenophobic and Islamophobic possibilities implicit in the process of European self-definition. If Europe defines itself constitutionally, as I believe it should, as either an essentially Christian entity, or as one which is at least founded in belief in God, then the fact of Muslim support for core principles of Christian ethics will give Islam a vital and appreciated place. But a purely secular Europe will always see Muslim values as problems on the margin, to be tolerated or punished according to the whims of the currently elected politicians. The relationship with European Jews is no less critical. If Orthodox Jewry – currently gaining in strength – can make common cause with Islam over core moral issues, chauvinisms and suspicions which currently exist on both sides will be seen as self-defeating.
Abdal Hakim Murad
Jonathan Brown – Abiding Stereotypes About the Prophet Muhammad in the Medieval and Modern West
Posted: May 9, 2011 Filed under: Islam, Videos Leave a comment »Why there is no room for God’s forgiveness in Christianity
Posted: April 14, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Islam Leave a comment »The basic fault of the traditional understandings of salvation within Western Christianity are that they have no room for divine forgiveness!
For a forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the giving of an adequate satisfaction, or the offering of a sufficient sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that the debt has been paid in full. But in the recorded teaching of Jesus there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who are truly penitent and vividly conscious of their utter unworthiness. In the Lord’s Prayer we are taught to address God directly as our heavenly Father and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another. There is no suggestion of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive. Again, in the Lukan parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15), the father, when he sees his penitent son returning home, does not say, ‘Because I am a just as well as loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly punished for his sins’, but rather he ‘had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.”* But the father said to his slaves, “Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!” (Luke 15. 20-24)
And again, in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the latter, ‘standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his home justified’ (Luke 18. 13-14).
And yet again, there is his insistence that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy: ‘Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Matthew 9.13).
This was fully in accord with contemporary Jewish understanding. E.P. Sanders in his authoritative work on Jesus’ Jewish background, says that ‘The forgiveness of repentant sinners is a major motif in virtually all the Jewish material which is still available from the period (Sanders Jesus and Judaism SCM Press p.18,1985); and it continues today in the prayers on the Day of Atonement. For Judaism sees human nature as basically good and yet with an evil inclination that has continually to be resisted.
However, God is aware of our finitude and weakness, and is always ready to forgive the truly penitent. In Islam there is an essentially similar view. God is always spoken of in the Quran as Allāhi raḥmāni raḥīmi ’God the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful’. God knows our weakness and forgives those who, in the self-surrender of faith, bow before the compassionate Lord of the universe.
Excerpt from The Metaphor of God Incarnate (second revised edition) published by SCM, 2005.
Professor John Hick is a world-renowned philosopher of religion and Christian theologian.
Where are the original Torah and Gospel?
Posted: March 29, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Islam 3 Comments »Question: Could you please tell me where the original copies of the Taurat [Torah] & Injeel [Gospel] are? I am getting different answers from my Muslim friends. I was of the understanding that the originals were destroyed/corrupted and that is why the Quran was sent to mankind. Does a copy of Taurat & Injeel exist on earth in it’s original form?
Answer: Many thanks for your question. You are right that there is a little bit of confusion about this, and also that some Muslims don’t quite know the facts properly.
The earliest copy of Saint Luke’s Gospel in existence is known as the Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV. It belongs to the Vatican Library and can be dated from between 175-225 AD, which is roughly one hundred to one hundred and fifty years after scholars believe the original was written. The document consists of fifty-one pages of a manuscript that originally contained seventy-two pages.
The very earliest known fragment of the New Testament is from Saint John’s Gospel and is slightly earlier. It dates from some time in the first half of the second century, which is maybe fifty years after the original was written, according to Biblical scholars.
As for the Old Testament, there are around one thousand manuscript copies in existence. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text (named after a group of Hebrew scribes known as the Massoretes), dating from around 800 AD.
The oldest Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint dates back to around the second century BC. However, with the discovery in 1947 of many ancient manuscripts in earthenware jars found in a cave at Qumran near the Dead Sea, two copies of the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, written in Hebrew, were found, which were one thousand years earlier than any previous manuscripts.
So, what does all this tell us, and how does it fit into what Muslims believe about the original Torah and Injeel (Gospel) being corrupted? In other words, how does it answer your question?
For our purposes, the Torah responds to what is now referred to by Christians and Jews as the Old Testament, and the Injeel refers to what Christians refer to as the Gospels, which form a part of the New Testament.
There are clearly, then, existing copies of both the Jewish and Christian texts, dating back quite a long way. Biblical scholars are agreed that most of these texts agree with one another in about ninety-five per cent of their content. That seems quite a lot and seems to suggest not much change in thousands of years.
However, five per cent of a book is still a considerable number of words, especially when you consider that the Old Testament is made up of 39 different books and a total of 593,493 words, and that the New Testament is made up of 27 books and 181,253 words. That means that nearly thirty thousand words differ in the Old Testament and nearly nine thousand words are different from one another in the New Testament.
Enough of playing with numbers. Muslims believe that the original of both the Torah and the Injeel no longer exist in their original form. We read in the Quran what means:
“Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings.” (An-Nisaa 4:46)
And also:
“So woe to those who wrote the Book with their hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ that they may sell it for a little price. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings.” (Al-Baqarah 2:79)
Muslims believe that God the Almighty did indeed reveal His message to previous generations through Prophets He sent down to them. Each of these messages was for a particular people at a particular time in history. The message given to Moses, then, was for the Jews of his time. The message given to Jesus, was for the Jesus of his own time.
The Quran, though, which was revealed to the unlettered Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over a period of twenty-three years, was for all people and for all time.
So you see, there are indeed copies in existence of the books which Christians and Jews believe were the revelation of Allah. Muslims, however, do not believe that these books are a true record of what was originally revealed. They were either written down wrongly in the first place, or were corrupted by translation or by the deliberate actions of men.
It would take an answer much longer than this one to explain, for example, how the Gospels were written. The early Christian Church eventually chose four Gospels from among many, which roughly corresponded to what Christians already believed.
The writers of these particular four differ in their intentions in writing, but none of them write to prove anything about Jesus. They write to portray a different aspect of Jesus for a particular audience.
In some places they actually disagree with one another, because they are not dealing with facts, as we know them, but with artistic creativity. These Gospels are indeed beautifully crafted, but cannot and do not claim to be the literal word of God.
These Gospels were written after the letters of Saint Paul, in which the case is made very strongly for Jesus being divine. Paul claims his knowledge of this came from a personal revelation from Jesus.
You will realize, sister, that trying to sum up the whole breadth of Biblical scholarship and Quranic belief in such a sound-bite answer is like trying to explain nuclear physics in a thousand words.
In a nutshell, the answer is this: yes, there are copies of both the Old and New Testament in existence, which date from relatively close to the time the original message was revealed.
Muslims, however, do not believe that these scriptures are indeed the Torah and the Injeel (Gospel) originally revealed to men by Allah Almighty. They believe this because the Quran tells them that they are not. The originals no longer exist.
We should be very careful, then, in quoting from them to prove a point, since we are quoting from something which we believe to be corrupted.
This does not, however, prevent us from respecting what Christians and Jews believe, because their own books are sacred to them and we do, after all, worship the One God.
Is it Justifiable to Lie in Order to Tell the Truth?
Posted: March 28, 2011 Filed under: Christianity 3 Comments »Who Wrote the Bible and why It Matters
by Bart D. Ehrman
Author of ‘Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are‘
Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that — that the Bible actually contains lies?
Most people wouldn’t put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books “pseudepigrapha.”
You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It’s the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means “writing that is inscribed with a lie.”
And that’s what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere — except for our friends among the fundamentalists — will tell you that there is no way on God’s green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you’ll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn’t. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.
The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul’s name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi — lies.
This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don’t depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that — he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul’s name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).
Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history’s great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.
It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the “Paul” of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as “the word of truth” (1:13); he indicates that the “truth is in Jesus”; he tells his readers to “speak the truth” to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to “fasten the belt of truth around your waist” (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.
It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of ‘Misquoting Jesus’ and ‘Jesus, Interrupted’. His latest book, ‘Forged: Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are’, is now available from HarperOne.
Muslamic Ray Guns – The EDL Anthem
Posted: March 23, 2011 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »Press TV interviews English Defence League theoretician
Posted: March 21, 2011 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »This gentleman’s compelling arguments are sure to win over many people to EDL’s cause
Missionary Tactics Against Islam
Posted: March 18, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, MDI, Videos Leave a comment »Is Islam a Threat to the West? The Cambridge Debate
Posted: March 18, 2011 Filed under: Islam, MDI, Videos Leave a comment »TRAILER: Is Islam a threat to the West? The Big Cambridge Debate
Posted: March 12, 2011 Filed under: Christian extremism, Islam, MDI, Videos Leave a comment »On the 4th November 2010, the Cambridge Union held a debate entitled “This House believes Islam is a Threat to the West“
This is a trailer for the exciting and controversial debate video, which shall be posted on the 16th March 2011.
Beyond Fundamentalism: Texts and Translations
Posted: January 14, 2011 Filed under: Christianity 32 Comments »Christians of a more conservative persuasion often assure the rest of us that the Bible ‘as originally given’ is guaranteed free of error and that no other work from the ancient world has been preserved with such fidelity.
But do these assurances stand up to the evidence of the Biblical texts? What does the objective factual evidence inescapably tell us?
The role of the Septuagint translation gives us a powerful illustration of the issues.
The New Testament writers generally quote from it as does Jesus as depicted by them (though he spoke Aramaic not Greek).
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, tells us:
The Septuagint is a work of epoch-making importance, the first full-scale translation of a body of works like the Old Testament to be made on this scale and in a scope that involves languages as different as Hebrew and Greek and cultural milieus as different as the Jewish and the Hellenistic. But, under the circumstances, it was not surprisingly, as a translation, a work of very mixed quality. It differed from book to book, since different techniques of translation were used; at some places it must have had a Hebrew text different from ours, while at others it seriously misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. No scholar who knows the material doubts that this is so. But this makes a difference when we consider the New Testament. For it does not only use the Septuagint in a general way: it often uses the exact ductus of its swords as argument or proof of a theological point.
Escaping from Fundamentalism page 142
Let’s look at an example that illustrates this phenomenon, from the Epistle to the Hebrews 10.5
Consequently, when he came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired,
but a body hast thou prepared for me…’
This passage is a quotation from Psalm 40:7ff. In the original Hebrew, which is what is translated in our English Bibles (check one and see) we read:
Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear… (Ps.40.6)
Now the whole point of the quotation in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that it mentions the preparation of a body for the Christ coming into the world; the writer comes back to exactly this:
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb 10:10)
But there was absolutely nothing about a body in the original Hebrew at all! Scholars debate over whether it was a mistranslation or a copying error in the transmission of the Greek text. But we can nevertheless draw the following conclusions:
1) There is no doubt that the Epistle to the Hebrews was proving a point of doctrine from a word that did not exist at all in the Hebrew Bible and which was either the product of an error in transmission or a mistranslation.
2) The matter was theologically important: the question was whether there was in the Bible a previous reference to the clothing of Christ in a body. And as we have seen this difficult demonstration is accomplished entirely through the appeal to the erroneous words of the Septuagint.
So to return to my opening remarks:
Conservative Christians often assure us that the Bible ‘as originally given’ is guaranteed free of error and that no other work from the ancient world has been preserved with such fidelity. I asked, ‘do these assurances stand up to the evidence of the Biblical texts? What does the objective factual evidence inescapably tell us?’
We are now in a position to conclude that matters of doctrinal importance have arisen from accidental or erroneous factors in the transmission of the Bible.
Btw, this sort of thing is not uncommon. Further examples can be cited on request…
Reza Aslan vs. the Islamophobes
Posted: January 10, 2011 Filed under: Islam, Silly, Videos Leave a comment »Brilliant video!
An agnostic Jew on what’s really in the Quran
Posted: December 9, 2010 Filed under: Videos Leave a comment »A new video from The Accidental Theologist a new blog from Lesley Hazleton
Answering Common Questions on Salvation That Christians Pose to Muslims
Posted: November 28, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Debates, Islam Leave a comment »Here’s a new article by Bassam Zawadi & Mansur Ahmed from the excellent site call to monotheism
If it’s not the concept of God Himself that is the major dividing line between Muslims and Christians, then it is definitely the way to attain salvation.
There are nine common questions that Christians usually pose to Muslims regarding the concept of salvation in Islam and we will attempt to briefly address them here in this article.
1) Islam teaches that Allah’s will is arbitrary. He can forgive whomever He wills according to the Qur’an. If Allah can forgive you without punishing you, how does Allah balance between mercy and justice when granting or denying salvation to people? In Christianity, God has punished all sin so we don’t have to worry about this.
Islam does not teach that Allah’s Will is arbitrary. In fact, Allah’s Will is exercised or expressed in accordance to His Divine nature and Wisdom. Sin is not a thing – that exists by itself independent of volitional actors – which needs punishing when committed. A woman is not sin, neither are our eyes, or our hearts. But the action of the eye or the heart when looking at a woman with lust is a sin. Sin does not exist as an entity – wrongly conceived in Christianity – which you can punish. Punishing the actors of sin has a meaning and not punishing the sin.
We do not believe that Allah needs to express both His Mercy and Justice on every individual at the same time at all times. His Justice is carried out on every individual in perfect wisdom. No one will be wronged, for everyone gets their due (as good and bad is explained through the prophets and messengers at all times in human history). Any good one has done or any bad one has done – be they small or big – will be accounted for. That’s the Justice of God.
His Mercy however, though in a general sense is open to all in this life (as understood from His name Al-Rahman). The Qur’an states:
Surah 3:31
Say (Oh Muhammad): If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
Here we see that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is commanded to tell the people that they must follow his guidance, which was revealed to him by Allah in order to receive Allah’s love. Allah says:
Surah 21:107
And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.
So here we see that Allah is offering His love and mercy to everyone in the form of Islam. If one rejects Islam then he or she is rejecting Allah’s offer of love in turn. It’s not an issue of Allah not wanting to love the person, but an issue of the person not allowing Allah’s love to reach him.
Allah has declared to humanity about His nature:
Surah 7:156
My Mercy encompasses all things
Surah 6:12
He has taken it upon Himself to be Merciful
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said:
When Allah created the creation He put down in his Book, which is with Him upon the Throne: Verily, My mercy prevails over My wrath. (Sahih Muslim 4939)
He has however, in a specific sense, reserved the abundant mercy (Surah 7:156) for the believers in the hereafter (as understood from His name Al-Raheem).
God by taking on to Himself to be Merciful, which prevails over His wrath (i.e. punishing through Justice) has told us how He expresses these two apparently contradictory attributes. His attributes therefore are complimentary.
There are two kinds of sins that could occur. One is sin against God and the other is sin against creation. If we sin against God, it is entirely within God’s prerogative to forgive us. If we sin against humanity more than one thing could occur. 1) He whom I sinned against could forgive me for my crime or 2) God could forgive me for my crime and then recompense the victim in order to ensure overall justice.
Furthermore, God could punish me in this life for my crimes without punishing me in hell. For example, he could punish me with trials in this life. He could punish me in the grave. He could punish me and wipe out my sins by making me feel pain when the angel of death is pulling out my soul. He could temporarily punish me in hell for any sins that I committed.
This doesn’t contradict God being All Merciful. We don’t define All Just and All Merciful as meaning that God should be fully just and fully merciful with a human being at all given times. Surely, Muslims and Christians alike would agree that God won’t be merciful to the disbelievers on the Day of Judgment for instance. Rather, when we say that God is All Merciful or All Just we mean to say that His ability to exercise these two attributes is infinitely vast, but whether He decides to exercise them is entirely up to His will that is in accordance with His nature.
Also, we should bear in mind that Justice does not always denote vengeance or punishment. Sometimes forgiveness and display of mercy could be an act of justice. Allah’s forgiving someone for a sin without punishing him for it does not mean that Allah compromised His Justice. Human beings are created weak and are meant to fall into sin from time to time. There is no reason to believe that we deserve to be punished for every single thing that we do. We will expand more on this point below.
2) You Muslims aren’t even sure whether you have attained salvation. For crying out loud, Muhammad himself wasn’t sure if he would go to heaven according to an authentic hadeeth, so how could you be!?
It is not correct that Muslims aren’t sure whether they have attained salvation or not. Muslims have a guarantee of salvation and Promise from God to that matter.
Allah states:
Surah 9:72
Allah has promised to the believers -men and women, – Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of ‘Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success.
Allah also states:
Surah 3:9
Verily, Allah never breaks His Promise
Now if you ask the Muslim “are you going to paradise?” he is going to say to you “if Allah wills” (insha’allah). The well informed Muslim is not going to tell you “Yes I am going paradise for sure.” No, the Muslim hopes and prays that he will end up in paradise. It’s not because the Muslim is worried whether Allah will keep His promise, for as we have seen Allah does not break His promise. Rather, it is because the Muslim cannot be sure whether he would continue remaining on the straight path and die as a Muslim and the guarantee or promise of salvation is conditional in remaining and dying as a Muslim.
As for Christians, well there is no consensus regarding this matter.
If you are a Calvinist you would adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of saints, which basically states that once you’re saved, you’re always saved. Once the Holy Spirit dwells in you it will never leave you. But if you happen to be following the Arminian school of thought you would take a different stance and take a position similar to what Muslims take, which is the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and it is possible for one to lose that status.
One verse that Christians who adhere to the conditional preservation of saints often appeal to is the following:
Hebrews 6:4-8
“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”
The above verse according to Arminians clearly shows that the Holy Spirit could possibly leave even after it has dwelt in you.
They also appeal to the various verses in the Bible that warn believers about apostasy (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:1 and several other verses in the book Hebrews) and then ask why the New Testament would warn against something that isn’t even possible?
Also, Paul is reported to have said:
1 Corinthians 15:2
“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”
Paul is putting on a condition for one to be saved by the Gospel. That condition is that one holds firmly onto it. Clearly there is no point for saying such a thing if it is not possible for a true believer to let go of it. If the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints were true then it would have been enough for Paul to say (or something similar):
“By this gospel you are saved, once you have firmly embraced the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”
According to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints once one has become truly regenerate, he will never apostatize. Once he has embraced the gospel he will never let go of it. There is no “ifs” about the matter. However, Paul’s statement fits perfectly well with the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and that is the condition that Paul put:
if you hold firmly to the word.
These verses point to the apostasy and since apostasy is at least possible, then how could one be 100% sure that he wouldn’t apostatize in the future? Obviously, Calvinists would try to engage with these verses so we will allow the Christians to have their own “in house” debates on the side and they could try to settle the issue amongst themselves.
Uncertainty is a motivational factor to make you word harder in being a better person. Imagine you join a university and you are absolutely guaranteed that you would pass all your subjects no matter what you do. It would make no difference whatsoever if you study or not, you are still guaranteed your degree. If that is the case, would any students study just for the sake of studying? Not too many we suppose.
If someone claims certainty that he will go to heaven then this could lead to some problems. For example if you are absolutely certain that you are going to paradise why should you fear God? The New Testament states:
1 Peter 2:17
Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
Why should we fear God if we know for a fact that we are going to paradise? Why should we fear God anyways? Well the Bible states:
Exodus 20:20
Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”
So here we see that the reason why we should fear God is so that it could be a motivation for us to stop sinning. Well why should we stop sinning? Well it’s to avoid God’s wrath. But if the Christian already avoids God’s wrath by believing in and accepting what Jesus supposedly did on the cross then the Christian doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore. And if he doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore because he is certain that he is going to paradise then why fear God as the New Testament instructs him to do?
As for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) supposedly not being assured of his salvation, this has already been addressed over here.
3) The Qu’ran says that Allah is a deceiver, how can you trust a deceiver when he promises you something? Even Muhammad’s close companion Abu Bakr said he wasn’t sure about going to heaven because he doesn’t feel safe from the deception of Allah.
Allah in His wisdom throws back the deception at the deceiving unbeliever. The word ‘makr’ for example, according to classical Arabic dictionaries can have meaning of praise or blame depending on its usage in context. Breaking the deceivers plot is not to be taken as a blameworthy action, but it is on the contrary a praiseworthy action.
Such language is also present in the Bible (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:11) where God sends a lying spirit so they can believe in the lie in the spirit of outperforming the evil ones in their own evil plot.
As for the narration of Abu Bakr, this narration has not been proven to be authentic and even if it was Abu Bakr’s statement it is to be interpreted as him speaking out of humility.
4) Islam teaches that salvation is dependent upon the scales and whether your good deeds would outweigh the bad. How do you know what your scales would say on the Day of Judgment? Do you have some kind of notebook where you keep track of your actions or something? How about if you forgot to repent from a sin?
The weightiest deed on the Day of Judgment is ‘laa ilaaha illallaah’ the declaration of faith in Islam. This is both a faith and deed which is described as the key to entering paradise. No other bad deed can outweigh this one on the scales (except Shirk- which negates faith anyway if it’s not repented of before death).
All our actions are recorded – the good and the bad even if they are like the size of a mustard seed -, by the angels who are placed as scribes (Surah 82:10-13). A book that records everything from small to large where everything is accounted for (Surah 42:18)
As for possibly forgetting to repent for a sin, the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught us to make a prayer asking Allah to forgive us all of our sins while acknowledging that Allah knows better about them than us:
O Allah, forgive my sin, my ignorance, my immoderation in my affairs, and all that You know better about my (faults) than myself. O Allah, forgive for me my joking, my seriousness, my unintended error, and my deliberate (mistakes) — and I have done of all that.) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
Secondly, Allah said that He will not hold us accountable for what we forgot:
Surah 2:286
Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope. He gets reward for that (good) which he has earned, and he is punished for that (evil) which he has earned. “Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error, our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which You did lay on those before us (Jews and Christians); our Lord! Put not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Pardon us and grant us Forgiveness. Have mercy on us. You are our Maula (Patron, Supporter and Protector, etc.) and give us victory over the disbelieving people.”
5) Since Allah’s will and judgment are arbitrary, how do you know if Allah forgave your sins?
Allah’s will and His attributes are not arbitrary as explained before. His justice is such that no one will be wronged unjustly on the Day of Judgment (Surah 42:18). His Grace, love and forgiveness will be showered on the Day of Judgment upon those who showed to be the recipient of His Grace. People will go to Hell due to His Justice and to heaven by His Grace. Allah has described, unlike being anything arbitrary, that to receive His Grace, Mercy and forgiveness – one needs to follow the prophetic guidance and obey Him(Surah 3:31; 3:132). So if one has the correct faith in Allahand follows His will, now offered as Islam, and sincerely repents for his shortcomings/sins, Allah will surely forgive him (Surah 15:49; 40:2; 20:82)
6) How could Muslims believe that finite works could “earn” them paradise and please God? God is too great for that and requires something more and that thing is the acceptance of God’s sacrifice for us.
Islam makes it clear that one will enter paradise based on his faith and good works. Allah says:
Surah 2:25
And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous good deeds, that for them will be Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise).
Without faith, Allah will not accept those good deeds that one has done as He states in Surah 9, verse 17.
When Islam says that one must have faith, one must have faith in six specific things.
1) Belief in Allah as the only true God
2) Belief in the angels
3) Belief in all the revelations that God has sent
4) Belief in all the of the Messengers that God has sent
5) Belief in the Day of Judgment
6) Belief in predestination.
It is essential that the Muslim believes in all six of these things in order to make sure that his or her heart is purified because Allah says:
Surah 26: 88-89
The Day where neither wealth nor sons will avail. Except him who brings to Allâh a clean heart [clean from Shirk (polytheism) and Nifâq (hypocrisy)].
Also, the Muslim must recognize and be aware that it is ultimately only by Allah’s mercy that one will enter paradise:
Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 474
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
“Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news because one’s good deeds will NOT make him enter Paradise.” They asked, “Even you, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Even I, unless and until Allah bestows His pardon and Mercy on me.”
So here we see that it’s not by one’s good deeds that one will enter paradise but by Allah’s Mercy. However, Allah has commanded us to do good deeds and we would not be recipient of His mercy unless we obey His commands.
Now when it comes to Christianity there doesn’t seem to be a consensus amongst Christians regarding this crucial point. The Roman Catholics would say like what the Muslims say and that is that salvation is achieved by both faith and works. However, the Protestants take a different stance and say that salvation is only attained by faith alone and that this is the kind of faith that manifests itself and bears the fruit of good works.
We personally tend to agree more with the Roman Catholics on this point, since it appears that the Old Testament, the Biblical Jesus and his half brother James believed and taught such a doctrine as the following verses below illustrate:
Ezekiel 18:21-22
21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will
Matthew 19:16-21
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17″Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18″Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]“
20″All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
James 2:20-26
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Dr. Umar Al-Ashqar states the harmony between faith and good works in the process of salvation:
Paradise is something of immense value; a person cannot earn it by virtue of his deeds alone, but by the Grace and Mercy of Allah. Muslim reported from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah said:
“No one of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone.” They asked, “Not even me, unless Allah covers me with His Grace and Mercy. (Muslim, 4/2170, hadith no. 2816)
The fact that some texts indicate that Paradise is the price for the deeds could be problematic, for example:
{No person knows what is kept hidden for them of joy as a reward for what they used to do.} (Qur’an 32:17)
{such are the dwellers of Paradise. They will abide therein.} (Qur’an 7:43)
However, there is no conflict between these aayaat (verses) and the meaning of the hadith. The aayaat indicate that good deeds will be a reason, not the price, for admission to Paradise. The hadith says that good deeds are not the price for admission. Two groups were misled in this matter: the Jabariyah, who took the hadith to mean that the reward is not connected to deeds, because man has nothing to do with his deeds [i.e. everything is foreordained]; and the Qadariyah, who took the hadith to mean that Paradise was the price for good deeds, and man has the right to enter by virtue of his good deeds.
The commentator on At-Tahaawiyah said: “As for the idea that recompense results directly from one’s deeds, the Jabariyah and Qadariyah are misled, and Allah, to Whom be praise, has guided Ahl as-Sunnah. The Arabic preposition ba’ of negation (nafyi) is not like the ba’ used for affirmation. The negation in the hadith “No one will enter Paradise by virtue of his deeds (bi ‘amaalihi) is the ba’ of substitution or exchange, as if good deeds were not the price of a man’s admission to Paradise. This is like the (false) Mu’tazili claim that good deeds will give a person the right to enter Paradise, whereas the truth is that admission to Paradise is by the Grace and Mercy of Allah. The bi’ in the ayah, {. a reward for what they used to do [Jaza'an bi maa kaanu ya'maloon].} (Qur’an 32:17) is known in Arabic grammar as the bi’ of causation, i.e. because of their deeds. But Allah is the Creator of cause and effect, so everything is referred back to His Grace and Mercy.” (Sharh at-Tahaawiyah, 495.) (Umar Al Ashqar, Islamic Creed Series, Volume 5: Paradise and Hell in Light of the Qur’an and Sunnah, pages 265-266)
7) The Qu’ran says that Allah “misguides people” and “hardens their hearts”. This shows that several people end up in hell and lose salvation because Allah made that to be the case. What kind of hope for salvation does Islam offer us when Allah could end up hindering us from attaining it?
One can refer to this article for a fuller explanation http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/what does it mean that allah guides whom he wills and misguides whom he wills
It is not that He ‘misguides’ them, but rather leaves them astray even after reminding them. This is because they chose misguidance over His guidance. There are some who have become oblivious to the guidance due to their own making, and no advice or warning benefits them. They have chosen to seal their own hearts from guidance. This is from the foreknowledge of God. It is not Allah who hinders us from attaining salvation; neither is it He who has made us like that.
In the Bible, God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. God declares:
Exodus 4:21
I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will not let the people go.
But if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then Pharaoh cannot be held morally responsible for his actions, since he did not do it of his own free will, but out of constraint (cf. 2 Cor. 9:7 ; 1 Peter 5:2 ). Why did he harden Pharaoh’s heart so he would reject God’s will? If God is just, why blame Pharaoh for his sin when it was God who hardened his heart to sin?
Paul says:
God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden (Rom.9:18-19 )
We see that the Bible contains similar apparently problematic passages. The question we would like answered is why Christians are applying double standards when critiquing Islam?
8 The concept of salvation straight from the time of Adam involved blood sacrifice, yet Islam mentions nothing about this. Islam’s concept of salvation contradicts that of the previous prophets.
Blood sacrifice was not the only way of atonement. Three different methods of atonement are identified in the Hebrew Bible: animal sacrifices, contrite repentance & prayer, and charitable deeds. For a fuller explanation please read: Blood Sacrifice by Messiah Truth Out Reach and Jews for Judaism.doc.
9) Can you perfectly obey God’s law? No you cannot, so why do you deserve going to paradise? Shouldn’t Allah be All-Just and only accepting perfection?
For starters the question is a straw man. Islam does not expect Muslims to perfectly follow each Islamic ruling or law. Secondly, the question seems to demand perfection, yet God did not create us perfect, God created us with free will, and knew that we would fall sometimes, so you can’t demand perfection when you haven’t been created to be capable of being a perfect saint. Thirdly, in Islam God expects us to sin, because when we sin we turn back to God in repentance. In essence this is a way to open up a relationship with God! In Islam God expects you to fall, but it’s about picking yourself up, learning from your mistakes, and moving on. Fourthly, not all Muslims will automatically go to heaven, many will go to hell where they will be cleansed of their sins, as for Muslims who do go straight to heaven, they will be punished in this life as a way to get rid of that sin, as the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught, punishments in this life is a form of taking the sin away and being saved in the hereafter. Fifthly, let us use some logic and rationality as God would want us to, saying a bad word is a sin, punching someone is a sin, etc., yet these are minor sins at most, do you really expect God to send you to hell for eternity for such a small sin? God never created us with the intention of being perfect, hence to assume perfection is a straw man, a straw man Christians can’t impose on us as Muslims.
Allah said:
Surah 16:61
And if Allâh were to seize mankind for their wrongdoing, He would not leave on it (the earth) a single moving (living) creature
Thus, anyone who invokes Allah for His Wrath against his own self will be taking foolishness as their way. Those who have sane minds, in contrast, invoke Allah for His Mercy and only invoke Him for His Wrath with their enemies. This is because Allah’s Mercy encompasses everything:
Surah 7:156
(As to) My punishment I afflict therewith whom I will and My Mercy embraces all things. That (Mercy) I shall ordain for those who are the Muttaqûn (the pious), and give Zakât; and those who believe in Our Ayât (revelations,
Allah does not require anyone to perfectly fulfill His commandments, but to be as righteous as they humanly can:
Surah 2:256
Allâh burdens not a person beyond his scope
Surah 64:16
So keep your duty to Allâh and fear Him as much as you can
Thus, Allah shows His Kindness to His creation that He treats them with His Mercy. How can this be a source of criticism? We thank Allah that He treats us with His Mercy, that He only requires us to do what we can in return for His Promise of Paradise, {(Allah said) eat of the Tayyibât (good lawful things) wherewith We have provided you, and commit no transgression or oppression therein, lest My Anger should justly descend on you. And he on whom My Anger descends, he is indeed perished. And verily, I am indeed forgiving to him who repents, believes (in My Oneness, and associates none in worship with Me) and does righteous good deeds, and then remains constant in doing them (until his death).} (Surah 20:81-82)
We reiterate the point that display of Mercy does not necessarily contradict the notion of being Just. Justice does not equal revenge. Justice equals fairness. Allah could forgive someone fairly without punishing him because that person repented from his sin sincerely and was too weak by his own nature to resist committing it. We are not saying that the weakness of humans justifies their committing sins. There are minor and major sins and there usually aren’t any good excuses for one to commit major sins. Also, it depends on how frequent one is sinning. But what matters the most is how the person picks himself up after sinning. That would determine how Allah would deal with such a person. Whether Allah chooses to forgive or punish, at the end no matter what He does He is being fair.
Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com
Acts 17 Apologetics ‘does not reflect a Christian spirit’
Posted: July 14, 2010 Filed under: Christian extremism, The News 1 Comment »Christian pastors say Acts 17 Apologetics has ‘brought shame to the name of Christ‘, and other government leaders in Dearborn (including the Mayor) condemn ‘Christian’ trouble-makers who stirred up trouble against Muslims recently.
Read the official Dearborn City Hall article here (and follow the links therein):
Arrests at Arab Fest a matter of public safety
Muslim review of Bassam Zawadi vs. Tony Costa
Posted: July 11, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Debates, Islam 2 Comments »ON-THE-SITE REVIEW OF BASSAM ZAWADI VS. TONY COSTA
“Was the Prophet assured of his salvation?”
by Abu Yasin al-Kanadi
I attended this highly-anticipated debate yesterday in Toronto and enjoyed it immensely. I will not be going into a nitty-gritty detail of the points since I have not reviewed the recording yet, but will share my initial impressions from my memory of the debate last night. First, a sincere congratulations to both debaters for showing the rest of us here on the Internet and the PalTalk universe that such a debate can be carried out in a civil and respectful manner. Even a provocative debate title such as this one– “Was the Prophet Muhammad assured of his salvation?”– can be handled with tact and restraint when it involves two gentlemen on both sides. Also a quick word in response to what we can expect to see on David Wood and Sam Shamoun’s websites: One brother once put it best to me when he said that, no matter how well a Muslim debater actually does, all you really get on Wood and Shamoun’s hate-blogs from the majority of like-minded Christian reviewers is about how the Christian debater “cleaned the floor” with the Muslim debater. Notice that the two Christians who were actually present at the debate and who have thus far posted some comments on Wood’s blog have not even made such a claim (although I am sure that such claims will eventually follow).
Now as for the debate– the truth of it, that is– Bassam proved his case quite well. Only brainwashed evangelicals who have as their starting premise that everything that touches the Prophet Muhammad turns dark and evil or who are simply too intellectually inept to grasp Bassam’s arguments in the first place would feel otherwise. Bassam clearly demonstrated that the only way that Tony can prove that the Prophet was uncertain of his salvation is by rejecting hadiths and calling upon Muslims to do the same. In other words, he is basically asking Muslims to change their religion (not because he has proven anything false, but simply because it is convenient for him to ask us to), since orthodox Sunni Islam includes the use of authenticated hadiths. Bassam made it very, very clear that Tony was using double-standards throughout the debate in regards to this issue.
Even in regards to the Qur’an, Bassam gave lexicon and tafsir references to show that “`asaa” (translated as “may” in most English translations) can mean several things depending on the context, and that in reference to the forgiveness of the Prophets “sins” mentioned in the Qur’an it actually means “definitely”. He also, for the benefit of the English speaking audience, demonstrated how the English word “may” can likewise in certain contexts imply certainty and not uncertainty; for example, “Let’s sign the contract so that we may do business together.” There is no uncertainty that the carrying on of business will follow the signing of the contract. Tony completely glossed over this response of Bassam’s and kept on repeating that his translations of the Qur’anic word have it stated as “may”, and therefore the Qur’an only says that Allah may forgive the Prophet’s sins but that there is no certainty given here. So basically, this exposes not only Tony’s ignorance of the Arabic language but also his inability to either understand or concede to Bassam’s greater research and expertise in this matter, which would have been the more honest and academic thing to do. Being a specialist in the Greek of the New Testament, one would expect Tony to better appreciate the flexibility and nuances of an ancient language and the need for recourse to classical lexicons and not only Penguin paperback translations from Indigo’s. His failure (from memory) to even address Bassam’s English example arguably also demonstrates Tony’s inability to fully understand English, a charge that we are more used to hearing from the opposite side!
Again, Tony’s standards were completely inconsistent. He deduces from the fact that the Prophet feared what Allah would do with him the idea that the Prophet was afraid that he might go to hell. Bassam explained that the Prophet could still fear Allah for other valid reasons, even if he knows that he is saved; for example, he might fear difficult trials and punishments that await him (as with all prophets), a painful death, etc. Tony did not once directly address this response of Bassam’s. For Tony, acting with “anxiety” and fear automatically equals the fear of going to hell; one wonders if he is simply projecting his own honest and innermost soteriological doubts and fears unto the Prophet of Islam. The double standard of course lies in the fact that Jesus was sweating with fear in the Garden of Gethsemene and prayed to God for deliverance from death. Does this mean that Jesus was uncertain of his salvation or of God’s plan for him? Did Jesus perhaps fear hell or the deception or treachery of God the Father? The typical Christian answer would be: “No, of course not! He knew all along what God’s plan was and that God’s plan is good. This incident only demonstrates Jesus’ HUMANITY.” Well why can’t the same thing be said for the Prophet?
Why can’t the Prophet simply be allowed to be a human being who feared what God would do with him (in this life) and feel uncertain about life’s trials and tribulations which surely await any bona fide prophet of the Lord? Even a so-called “saved” Christian will try to avoid pain and death by wearing a seat-belt in the car, looking both ways before crossing the street, wearing a helmet while bicycling, etc. Does the attempt of a “saved” Christian who has cancer to seek treatment through chemotherapy undermine or expose his faith in his salvation as being false? Why are millions of “saved” Christians in the Bible-belt in the U.S. registered gun and rifle owners if not out of some type of anxiety or fear? Either it’s love of violence or fear, or both. We could go on and on with such examples. But none of these questions or examples directly address the question of whether a Christian is “saved” or not, or even whether he feels saved or not. Similarly, several of the hadiths that Tony quoted about the Prophet exhibiting some type of general fear of God and the future were actually irrelevant to the actual issue at hand. Bassam even tried to help Tony along by asking him the more specific question, “Can you give a reference showing where the Prophet feared hell?” Not surprisingly, Tony could not provide anything except an ad infinitum repetition of his previous points.
Tony also alleged that the Prophet asking for God’s forgiveness 70-100 times a day demonstrates that he was not forgiven. Yet Tony was asked during the Q & A if he (Tony) was saved and, if yes, does he still repent to God or ask God for forgiveness. Tony answered YES to both questions. Does Tony’s continued repenting to God undermine his claim of being “saved”? If both realities and experiences can go hand in hand for Tony, why can’t they go hand in hand for the Prophet Muhammad? I think Bassam should have hammered in this point much more. Nonetheless, the point was made clear through the questioning itself (the question was repeated by a 2nd questioner, illustrating Tony’s inability to satisfactorily address this question in the first instance).
Tony tried to justify his brushing off of hadiths by saying that Muslims do not always agree with them and that Sunnis and Shias cannot agree on the same hadiths, a red herring that I suspect Bassam saw coming from a few Canadian kilometres away. Bassam correctly pointed out Tony’s inconsistency on this because Tony himself had used hadiths elsewhere in his presentation to try to make his case stronger. Why then was he brushing off all the hadiths that Bassam quoted instead of trying to rationally tackle them? What Bassam could have also mentioned here is that there are dozens of gospels in existence but it is reasonable to quote only from the “canonical” gospels in a debate setting with Christians. Similarly, if you are debating a Sunni Muslim, it is rather reasonable to quote from their “canonical” or authenticated hadith collection. If there is a mutawaatir hadith that is accepted all across the board by the world’s Sunni Muslims, that is a legitimate source of information to be used in such a debate. Let’s not re-invent the rules at the 11th hour. I think Tony can probably get a lesson on hadiths from Wood and Shamoun on this particular point; perhaps they can hammer the point to him better than Bassam did. Unfortunately, however, they will not be left with much of a case on this particular topic if they were to do this.
I was a bit iffy about Bassam’s classification of hadiths as “scripture”, however, and wondered if that might be going a bit far, although I did see Bassam’s point and, for the purpose of this debate, the basic point being made is valid. Perhaps it would have been sufficient to state that the hadiths occupy the same level of religious importance to Muslims as the gospels do to Christians. If Christians believe that the gospels are “inspired” words that accurately relay information about Jesus, Muslims believe the same about the hadiths, regardless of the technical semantics involved. So Bassam’s categorization of hadiths as “scripture” required a few short sentences of justification. Nonetheless, we don’t expect to be told by Christians that we shouldn’t use hadiths. Limiting the Islamic side to only using the Qur’an is like limiting the Christian side to only using the Commandments pronounced by Yahweh in the Old Testament (which would incidentally leave the Christian with only the most concentrated form of anxiety and fear!)
If Tony is satisfied with his inconsistent measuring sticks and is unable (or unwilling) to grasp Bassam’s responses (some examples of which are outlined above, and which Tony totally glossed over), then I don’t expect his entourage and other evangelical fans on the “exposing Islam”-type websites to fare much better; it is rather predictable and cliched that some individuals from that camp would pronounce that Tony “proved his case” and that Bassam, like the rest of the Muslim debaters in the West, is good “but not good enough.”
As one of the posts on Wood’s blog quite correctly stated, Bassam is part of the cream of the crop of a very small number of competent Muslim debaters (in the English-speaking arena anyways) and Tony is part of the cream of the crop of a rather large number of Christian ones. Looking at the result of the debate objectively, then, which did clearly weigh in in Bassam’s favour, I think it’s rather clear where the Truth lies. In the case of last night’s debate, the truth did set the Prophet free.
Exposing David Wood: Of Mosques and Men, Pt. 2
Posted: July 2, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Islam Leave a comment »the latest revelations from www.loonwatch.com
Garibaldi writes
‘In my last article I debunked the lies and disinformation in the first half of David Wood’s anti-Muslim/anti-Mosque diatribe. Since then we have received a lot of comments and tips regarding the background of David Wood. Apparently David Wood is a….’
Read the rest of this disturbing article at www.loonwatch.com
Exposing David Wood: Of Mosques and Men, Pt. 1
Posted: June 24, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, The News, Videos Leave a comment »New article on loonwatch.com about the Muslim haters:
‘Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists.
While we find the sheer stupidity and outrageousness of the loons to be a source of invaluable comedy, we also recognize the seriousness of the danger they represent as dedicated hatemongers. And so, while our style reflects our bemusement, our content is fact checked and our sources well vetted making sure loonwatch.com is a reliable educational – if entertaining – resource on the rambunctious underworld of Muslim-bashing.’
Posted on 24 June 2010 by Garibaldi:
David Wood is a Christian apologist who attempts to save Muslim souls through his organization Acts 17 Apologetics and www.answeringmuslims.com. In the past Wood and his entourage, including ex-Ahmadi Muslim Nabeel Qureshi have targeted the Dearborn Arab Festival in Michigan for proselytism.
At the 2009 Arab Festival, David Wood made a controversial, and some claim one sided video that received over a million hits on YouTube which showed them getting kicked out of the festival. They claim that they were just engaged in free speech, whereas security at the festival stated that they were insulting and harassing festival goers.
Other Evangelical Christians criticized Wood and his group as being agitators….
Read the rest of this perceptive piece at the excellent www.loonwatch.com
Extremist Christians harass Muslims in Dearborn, are arrested by police
Posted: June 19, 2010 Filed under: The News, Violent extremism 41 Comments »Extremist Christians David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi, who organise hate campaigns against Muslims and Islam were thrown in jail last night after being arrested by Dearborn Police.
“We did make four arrests for disorderly conduct,” Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad said today. “They did cause a stir.”
Qureshi, a recent convert to Christianity, caused controversy last year after he and Wood produced a video posted on You Tube that shows them getting into a dispute with people and security at last year’s Arab festival. Local residents and city officials say the video was selectively edited and gave a slanted, negative view of Dearborn.
The group was criticized by the city and residents for aggressively putting video cameras in the faces of people at a festival that draws thousands of families over Father’s Day weekend.
The Free Press reported last year on the growing number of evangelical Christians targeting Dearborn to convert Muslims. Some Christians have criticized Wood and Qureshi for their behavior.
Wood and Qureshi, who repeatedly claim that Islam is violent, said they were being harassed.
But the Rev. Haytham Abi Haydar, a Christian evangelical convert with Arabic Alliance Church in Dearborn, said that Acts 17 Apologetics caused problems at last year’s Arab festival.
“They put cameras in their faces and were very antagonistic, ” Abi Haydar told the Free Press.
Read the full story here 4 arrested at Dearborn festival
My Review of ‘Did the first Christians Worship Jesus?’ by James D.G. Dunn
Posted: June 5, 2010 Filed under: Christianity 7 Comments »
Did the first Christians Worship Jesus?‘ by James D.G. Dunn, published by SPCK 2010
Most Christians believe that Jesus is God and worship him as part of the Trinity. But what did the New Testament writers say about worshipping Jesus? Did they view him as God, as someone we should worship? Are Christians today guilty of what Dunn calls ‘Jesus-olatry‘?
In this new book by James D.G. Dunn, (Emeritus Professor of Divinity, Durham University and author of numerous ground-breaking works) he examines the key New Testament texts and the arguments of the most influential recent interpreters.
In somewhat dense academic prose Dunn articulates his ‘reservations’ concerning recent work by two senior scholars in Britain, Larry Hurtado (Edinburgh) and Richard Bauckham (St Andrews) who argue that Jesus was worshipped from the beginning of Palestinian Jewish Christianity as one who shared or was included in the identity of the one God of Israel (‘christological monotheism’, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, 2003, and Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 2008)
Dunn writes, ‘Bauckam argues that it does most justice to the New Testament texts and to the christology espoused by the first Christians to see them as identifying Jesus directly with the one God of Israel. In the light of our findings, it is appropriate to ask whether this new coinage of ‘divine identity’, and Bauckham’s thesis that the first Christians saw Jesus as sharing or included in the divine identity, is a helpful resolution to the tensions between the diverse ways in which Paul and the first Christians conceptualized the relationship of Jesus to God and to themselves. Bauckham offers this formula as a more satisfactory alternative to the standard distinction between a ‘functional’ and an ‘ontic’ christology, as providing a more satisfactory way of assessing the earliest christological reflection, within the matrix and traditions of Second Temple Judaism, than the explorations of its concepts of divine agents and heavenly intermediaries. But I have some reservations.’
Dunn’s first concern is with the language of ‘identity’. In traditional christology the concept of ‘person’ (God is three persons in one God) is highly problematic since our usual understanding of that term today is very different from the technical understanding of the Latin word persona, a term devised to provide a way of distinguishing between Father, Son and Spirit with in the Trinity. The Latin persona means basically a mask, as used by actors in a play which represented the character being played; and so by extension it came to denote the ‘character’ itself. Dunn thinks that ‘identity’ language runs the same risk.
Dunn asks, ‘what constitutes human/personal identity? Ethnic origin, country of birth and basic education, profession, family, friends hobbies…? If not ‘essence’ or ‘being’, then relationships. So how does that diversity in identity-composition work in relationship to Yahweh – the Creator, the Life-giver, the God of Israel, the Father and God of the Lord Jesus Christ, the final judge…?’
He concludes, ‘The New Testament writers are really quite careful at this point. Jesus is not the God of Israel. He is not the father. He is not Yahweh. An identification of Jesus with and as Yahweh was an early attempt to resolve the tensions indicated above; it was labelled ‘Modalism’, a form of ‘Monarchianism’ (the one God operating first as Father then as Son), and accounted a heresy.’ pp 141-142.
Dunn concludes his book with ‘The Answer‘,
‘If what has emerged in this inquiry is taken seriously, it soon becomes evident that Christian worship can deteriorate into what may be called Jesus-olatry.That is, not simply into worship of Jesus, but into a worship that falls short of the worship due to the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I use the term ‘Jesus-olatry’ as in an important sense parallel or even close to ‘idolatry’. As Israel’s prophets pointed out on several occasions, the calamity of idolatry is that the idol is in effect taken to be the God to be worshipped. So the idol substitutes for God, takes the place of God. The worship due to God is absorbed by the idol. The danger of Jesus-olatry is similar: that Jesus has been substituted for God, has taken the place of the one creator God; Jesus is absorbing the worship due to God alone.’ p 147.
So Dunn effectively takes issue with the great christological statements of the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon and joins the ranks of the unitarians in affirming a simple monotheistic theology. But his conclusions have far reaching implications for orthodox Christianity which stands condemned as promoting the serious sin of idolatry in its worship of Jesus as God.
The other great monotheist faiths, Judaism and Islam, have always claimed that the worship of Jesus constitutes a denial of Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion, but Dunn in his conclusion seems reluctant to take on board the effectiveness of these critiques. I believe the only alternative religion that claims universality in its scope is Islam, which offers an appropriate evaluation of Jesus as Messiah, prophet, messenger and Word from God without falling into the errors of ‘Jesus-olatry’ (Christianity) or a denial of the divine mission of Jesus of Nazareth (Judaism).
All Christians should read this book, and Muslims too will find much to benefit their dawah.
TV debate between a Muslim and a member of the English Defence League
Posted: May 10, 2010 Filed under: Videos 2 Comments »Modern day politics is governed by a climate of tension and confusion over what constitutes British and English Values. What defines the English culture? Is Multiculturalism a threat to a cohesive society? Can Muslims live in the UK with non-Secular beliefs, under some measure of Shariah laws? Will this really threaten Britain?
What is the future of English Identity?
N-TV Show: The Alternative Platform
With guest Panelists:
Paul Williams – English convert to Islam and Director of the Muslim Debate Initiative.
Bill Baker – Experienced English Nationalist Activist, organizer of the Harrow Mosque demonstration, former member of the English Democrat party, now member of the English Defence Leauge (EDL).
Apostasy: WWJD?
Posted: April 15, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Islam 1 Comment »The subject of the punishment for apostasy in religion is guaranteed to provoke fierce passions in the West today. I intend to outline often overlooked and ignored evidence that suggests that all three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, later Christianity and Islam) in their original teaching, all required that the apostate face the most extreme penalty: death. The case of Islam is well known, so I will not discuss it in detail here. However the teaching of Jesus on the Law and his reported support for the implementation of the death penalty is commonly overlooked and ignored by those claiming to follow him today.
My analysis is inevitably controversial even shocking, but the historical evidence is, I believe, persuasive.
The Torah
Without further commentary I cite the well known passage in Deuteronomy which presents itself as the very words of God:
Deuteronomy 12:1
1 These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess — as long as you live in the land.
And this is one such law dealing with apostasy and its mandatory punishment:
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
The teaching of Jesus
There is no reported teaching by Jesus about apostasy or its punishment in the canonical gospels. This is where the investigation usually ends, but there are reported sayings of Jesus that suggest, for Jesus, there was to be no change in the applicability of the Deuteronomic law in the Kingdom of God. Consider these well known passages from the gospel of Matthew:
Chapter 5:17-20
17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Chapter 23:1-4
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2″The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
As one of the world’s leading experts on the New Testament, professor James Dunn comments on these passages:
‘Whatever Jesus himself may have meant by any talk of fulfilling the law, he is not to be understood as superseding it, or leaving it behind. On the contrary, ‘fulfilment’ is defined by the antithesis with ‘destroy’: Jesus came not to abolish (the affirmation is repeated) but to fulfil – that is, presumably, to realize or complete the law and thus to establish it, set it on a firmer basis (5.17). The point is strengthened by linking the saying with v.18 by the explanatory ‘for’: Jesus came not to destroy but to fulfil, ‘for so long as heaven and earth endure, not one dot not one letter will disappear from the law until everything has happened’. That is to say, the law will remain inviolate, imperishable until the end of the age, or until the will of God has been fully accomplished. And what that means is clarified in turn by setting out v.19 as a corollary: ‘Therefore whoever relaxes (or sets aside) even the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven’ (note, not excluded from the kingdom, but definitely a second rate citizen); whereas ‘whoever keeps the commandments and teaches others so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven’. Here clearly the law as ‘realised’ by Jesus retains an unconditional validity for those who belong to the kingdom of heaven; and here too is a firm rebuke to other members of the kingdom (other Christians – Matt. 8.11) who were more liberal in their attitude to the law. A similar emphasis is evident in 23.3 – ‘Whatever the scribes and Pharisees tell you practice and observe’ (also 23.23).’
Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, pp 265-266
Therefore, in light of the above passages from Matthew it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus taught that the law in Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is still binding on the disciples of Jesus and apostasy is punishable by death.
There is another passage pertinent to the question of the death penalty and the continuing validity of the law. In the same gospel we read the following:
Matthew 15:1-9
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2″Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honour your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honour his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8″ ‘These people honour me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’”
Jesus cites a law found in Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9: ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death’. He chastises those who ignore this teaching (‘the word of God’) for man-made teaching (‘your tradition’). Incidentally, miscreants were to be stoned to death for this crime.
The story of the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8 is sometimes believed to imply that Jesus abolished the death penalty. However, this story probably does not go back to Jesus as the most ancient manuscripts of the gospel lack this passage and it is almost certainly a scribal insertion into John’s narrative.
Later Catholic and Protestant teaching about apostasy and it’s punishment.
It will come as no surprise to the reader to discover that the death penalty for apostasy was advocated by the leading theologians of the Reformation and by the Roman Catholic Church.
The official teaching of the Catholic church was summarised by St Thomas Aquinas in his theological treatise the Summa Theologiae. Aquinas based his teaching on the New Testament and wrote this concerning the correct treatment of ‘disbelievers, heretics and apostates’:
‘In Luke we are told: ‘Go out into the country roads and lanes and compel people to come in, that my house may be full’. So some people are to be compelled to believe and enter the church. But only people who had once accepted the faith: pagans and Jews can’t be forced to believe since believing is a matter of will. The faithful if they have the power, may use it to stop such disbelievers hindering the faith by blasphemy or propaganda or openly persecuting it. This is the reason Christians frequently wage war on disbelievers: not to force them to believe but to stop them hindering the faith.
However, disbelievers who once accepted and professed the faith – heretics and apostates – can be compelled, even physically, to fulfill their promises and hold to do what they once professed. For even though making a vow is a voluntary matter, keeping it is an obligation. So adopting the faith is voluntary, but sticking to it once adopted is obligatory.
About heretics there are two things to say. Their sin deserves banishment not only from the church by excommunication but also from the world by death. But the church seeks with mercy to turn back those who go astray, and condemns them not immediately but only after a first or second warning. If, however, a heretic remains stubborn, the church, despairing of his conversion, takes care of the salvation of others, separates the heretic from the church with a sentence of excommunication and delivers him to the secular courts to be removed from the world by death.
from Summa Theologiae by St Thomas Aquinas (A Concise Translation by T. McDermott) pp339-340
The life and death of Michael Servetus (1511-1553) is well known to students of the Reformation.
He publicly rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and was subsequently executed by John Calvin in Geneva. This punishment was approved by the leading Reformers of the time. Melanchthon, the theological head of the Lutheran Church, supported the execution of Servetus. Afterwards he wrote to Calvin: “I have read your book, in which you dearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus …. To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your. magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man.”
In conclusion, we must ask why have the churches at the beginning of the 21st century abandoned the teaching of the Torah, Jesus of Nazareth, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Reformers?
Perhaps a consideration of the larger social context will suggest a possible solution.
Muslim philosopher Shabbir Akhtar in his book The Quran and the Secular Mind (2008) comments provocatively:
‘We must note that there are now few authentically religious Jews and Christians in the West even among the clergy and the rabbinate. All intellectually sophisticated Jews and Christians are secularised and, in their attitudes towards domestic issues, as opposed to foreign policy, are typically humane capitalists whose religious beliefs serve as a decorative veneer on their underlying secularised religious humanism. All charges are variations on the stock Muslim accusation, rooted in the Qur’an, that Jews and Christians have achieved a cosy accommodation with the world – or with modern secularism, in our day – at the cost of being unfaithful to their dogmatic traditions. Modern versions of Christianity and Judaism appear to be carefully disguised variants of secular humanism. Predictably, therefore, many Jews and Christians, unlike virtually all Muslims, live conscientiously and comfortably within the arrangements of the liberal secular humanist state. Islam is now unique in its existential decision, though not intellectual capacity, to confront rather than accommodate the secularist world-view. It is a faith whose adherents are sounding a lone note of courageous defiance in the battle against secularism while other trumpets are blowing retreat. (Page 7)
————————————————————–
The phrase “What would Jesus do?” (often abbreviated to WWJD) became popular in the United States as a personal motto for thousands of Christians who used the phrase as a reminder of their belief that Jesus is the example to be followed in daily life, and to act in a manner of which Jesus would approve.
Copyright © Paul Williams 2010
Good Friday (Easter) Sermon by Shabir Ally
Posted: April 5, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, Videos Leave a comment »Some thoughts on how to respond to Evangelical Christians
Posted: March 29, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, Violent extremism 1 Comment »Indian atheist embraces Islam
Posted: March 16, 2010 Filed under: Islam Leave a comment »By MD RASOOLDEEN | ARAB NEWS
Published: Mar 12, 2010
RIYADH: A well-known Indian psychotherapist embraced Islam on Thursday.
Dr. Periyadarshan, who has changed his name to Abdullah, told Arab News Friday that Islam is the only religion in the world that follows a book directly revealed from God.
He said that as a student of comparative religions he believes books of other faiths have not been directly revealed to mankind from God. He said the Holy Qur’an is still in the same format and style as it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) from Almighty Allah.
Dr. Abdullah is a visiting professor at the University of California in Los Angeles.
He also acted in the famous Tamil film “Karuthamma” about the killing of newborn baby girls in some remote villages in India. The production received national award from the Indian government.
“I was well known in India for my atheist theology and later I became to realize that religion is the only way out for human beings both in this world as well as in the hereafter,” he said.
Dr. Abdullah will be performing Umrah on Saturday on his first visit to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah.
© 2010 Arab News
Instructive Parallels between the Early Church’s Hostility to the Jews and Contemporary Evangelical Attacks on Islam
Posted: March 16, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, Violent extremism Leave a comment »Why do so many Evangelical Christians expend so much effort disparaging Islam and Muslims? I am rereading From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus by Paula Fredriksen, Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University. Unwittingly she provides a possible answer to this question by describing the persistent attraction of Judaism for Gentiles in the early centuries after Christ. Curiously, the early Church fathers most often expended their energies criticising Judaism (see example below), rather than the idolatry of the Roman Empire, or its brutal abuse of power. Fredriksen identifies the reason why: Judaism represented an attractive alternative to the new religion of Pauline Christianity. Similarly, for many thoughtful people in the West, Islam represents an attractive alternative to the illogicalities of Trinitarianism. Evangelicalism’s prime directive therefore is to eliminate its principal rival: Islam. An ironic goal, as followers of the latter religion believe in Jesus the Christ and the prophets sent to Israel as well.
She writes:
Judaism was more than a standard challenge to Christian identity; it was also a competitor for Gentile adherents. During this period [1st and 2nd centuries] and long after, Gentiles continued to attach themselves to the synagogue for the same reasons that had always drawn them before: Judaism’s monotheism, its antiquity, its articulated ethics and strong community, its claims to revelation, and its prestigious sacred text. The rise of the Gentile Christianity is itself the best evidence of Judaism’s appeal: the church, though it repudiated the synagogue, also used it socially and religiously as a model. Christianity thereby offered to Gentiles fewer of Judaism’s disadvantages (circumcision for adult males; association with a nationality implicated, after the bloody revolts of 66, 117, and 132, in anti-Roman activity) but many of the same attractions (strong community, revealed ethical guidelines, and the scriptures themselves – already available, thanks to the Hellenistic synagogue, in Greek).
But the churches competed for these Gentiles against a religious community both better established and more broadly recognised. Here Christianity again offers the best evidence of Judaism’s abiding appeal. Christian invective, from the gospels through the writings of the second-century fathers and beyond, most often and most energetically targeted Judaism. Why? If its goal were to wrest Gentiles from the errors of paganism, one would expect more attention to polemics against idolatry; if its goal were to condemn the unethical exercise of power, one would expect stronger criticism of the empire, which after all had executed the Saviour and continued, sporadically, to persecute his followers. Why expend so much effort disparaging a community ostensibly engaged in compatible activity, turning Gentiles from idolatry to the worship of the God revealed in scripture? Because, to those Gentiles drawn to such religions and such communities, Judaism represented an attractive alternative to the church.
pp 211-212
From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus by Paula Fredriksen, Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University
The new ‘anti-Semitism’
It may be illuminating by way of example to cite recent statements of what I call the new anti-semitism: disparaging rhetoric now emanating from evangelical circles about Islam. Notice how it parallels the toxic anti-Jewish rhetoric that was virtually ubiquitous in the early church.
Nabeel Qureshi is an outspoken member of the resurgent Christian anti-Islam movement in the United States. On the Answering Muslim website he recently wrote
“Muslim terrorists are just that, the embodiment of Islam” (blog entry February 2010).
Rev Franklin Graham (son of evangelist Billy Graham) told the press that “Islam as a very evil and wicked religion.” On a radio broadcast he said: “Islam is a terror organization.”
Televangelist Rev Pat Robertson on Muslims and their faith: “These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it’s motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize what we’re dealing with.”
As is well documented, virulent anti-Jewish rhetoric has been the besetting sin of Christianity. Here are two representative examples from prominent and hugely influential Christians of the past.
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), was an important early church Father. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches honour him as a saint and Doctor of the Church. Chrysostom preached: “The Jews … are worse than wild beasts … lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and drunkenness had brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only … to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up … I hate the Jews … I hate the Synagogue … it is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.
I quote a longer extract from the most famous of the Protestant Christians and Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther. I warn the reader that his words are extremely offensive. In 1543 he wrote:
“What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.
First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more…
Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home…If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination…
To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden – the Jews… Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods… Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune. I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnapping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason, I would like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other heathen do not tolerate what we Christians endure from these venomous serpents and young devils…next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.”
Translated by Martin H. Bertram, On The Jews and Their Lies, Luther’s Works, Volume 47; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
The question remains therefore: how can Muslims constructively respond to this resurgent ‘new anti-semitism’?
Firstly, there is the important Qur’anic principle of responding with what is better, and not being dragged into the abusive slanging matches so often seen on the Internet (and elsewhere). Secondly, despite the apparent predominance of evangelicalism in the world there are important points of discussion that can be had with committed Christians who do want to engage in respectful dialogue.
These points might include the fact that all religious traditions emphasise God’s love for the poor and outcast; the importance of understanding the Islamic belief that God’s love makes redemption available throughout history, not only during a defined period two thousand years ago; the urgent need to deconstruct the media stereotype often imposed upon Muslims (as on Jews in the past) as being violent and legalistic.
Our contribution as Muslims to this ongoing discussion is that we worship a God who while being the source of justice, is nevertheless absolutely free in His love and mercy to forgive whom He chooses. To Christians we say that this appears to us considerably less legalistic than a theology that considers mankind’s sinfulness a debt that He must collect. Finally, we ask evangelicals to acknowledge the ‘Judaeophobia’ to be found in the New Testament itself (see for example John 8: 44,47), and recognise how it has generated hatred towards the Jews throughout nearly two thousand years of Christian history. This acknowledgement (belatedly made by many non-evangelical Christian theologians) might lead to a greater evangelical sensitivity to how the early Christians demonised Jews and the Jewish faith, and lead, inshallah, to a much needed reappraisal of the current disparagement of Muslims and Islam.
© Paul Williams February 2010
Did Jesus Really Die on the Cross and Rise From the Dead?
Posted: March 13, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, Videos Leave a comment »The Trinity: a Muslim Perspective
Posted: February 27, 2010 Filed under: Christianity, Islam 1 Comment »A number of difficulties will beset any presentation of Muslim understandings of the Trinity. Not the least of these is the fact that these Muslim understandings have been almost as diverse and as numerous as those obtaining among Christian scholars themselves. It is true that medieval Islam knew much more about Christian doctrine than the doctors of the Church did about Islam, for the obvious reason that Muslim societies contained literate minorities with whom one could debate, something which was normally not the case in Christendom. Muslim-Christian dialogue, a novelty in the West, has a long history in the Middle East, going back at least as far as the polite debates between St John of Damascus and the Muslim scholars of seventh-century Syria. And yet reading our theologians one usually concludes that most of them never quite ‘got’ the point about the Trinity. Their analysis can usually be faulted on grounds not of unsophistication, but of insufficient familiarity with the complexities of Scholastic or Eastern trinitarian thinking. Often they merely tilt at windmills.
There were, I think, two reasons for this. Firstly, the doctrine of Trinity was the most notorious point at issue between Christianity and Islam, and hence was freighted with fierce passions. For the pre-modern Muslim mind, Christian invaders, crusaders, inquisitors and the rest were primarily obsessed with forcing the doctrine of Trinity on their hapless Muslim enemies. It is recalled even today among Muslims in Russia that when Ivan the Terrible captured Kazan, capital of the Volga Muslims, he told its people that they could escape the sword by ‘praising with us the Most Blessed Trinity for generation unto generation.’ Even today in Bosnia, Serb irregulars use the three-fingered Trinity salute as a gesture of defiance against their Muslim enemies. And so on. Much Muslim theologising about the Trinity has hence been set in a bitterly polemical context of fear and often outright hatred: the Trinity as the very symbol of the unknown but violent other lurking on the barbarous northern shores of the Mediterranean, scene of every kind of demonic wickedness and cruelty.
To this distortion one has to add, I think, some problems posed by the doctrine of the Trinity itself. Islam, while it has produced great thinkers, has nonetheless put fewer of its epistemological eggs in the theological basket than has Christianity. Reading Muslim presentations of the Trinity one cannot help but detect a sense of impatience. One of the virtues of the Semitic type of consciousness is the conviction that ultimate reality must be ultimately simple, and that the Nicene talk of a deity with three persons, one of whom has two natures, but who are all somehow reducible to authentic unity, quite apart from being rationally dubious, seems intuitively wrong. God, the final ground of all being, surely does not need to be so complicated.
These two obstacles to a correct understanding of the Trinity do to some extent persist even today. But a new obstacle has in the past century or so presented itself inasmuch as the old Western Christian consensus on what the Trinity meant, which was always a fragile consensus, no longer seems to obtain among many serious Christian scholars. Surveying the astonishing bulk and vigour of Christian theological output, Muslims can find it difficult to know precisely how most Christians understand the Trinity. It is also our experience that Christians are usually keener to debate other topics; and we tend to conclude that this is because they themselves are uncomfortable with aspects of their Trinitarian theology.
What I will try to do, then, is to set out my own understanding, as a Muslim, of the Trinitarian doctrine. I would start by making the obvious point that I recognise that a lot is at stake here for historic Christian orthodoxy. The fundamental doctrine of Trinity makes no sense unless the doctrines of incarnation and atonement are also accepted. St Anselm, in his Cur Deus Homo, showed that the concept of atonement demanded that Christ had to be God, since only an infinite sacrifice could atone for the limitless evil of humanity, which was, in Augustine’s words, a massa damnata – a damned mass because of Adam’s original sin. Jesus of Nazareth was hence God incarnate walking on earth, distinct from God the Father dwelling in heaven and hearing our prayers. It thus became necessary to think of God as at least two in one, who were at least for a while existing in heaven and on earth, as distinct entities. In early Christianity, the Logos which was the Christ-spirit believed to be active as a divine presence in human life, in time became hypostatized as a third person, and so the Trinity was born. No doubt this process was shaped by the triadic beliefs which hovered in the Near Eastern air of the time, many of which included the belief in a divine atonement figure.
Now, looking at the evidence for this process, I have to confess I am not a Biblical scholar, armed with the dazzling array of philological qualifications deployed by so many others. But it does seem to me that a consensus has been emerging among serious historians, pre-eminent among whom are figures such as Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford, that Jesus of Nazareth himself never believed, or taught, that he was the second person of a divine trinity. We know that he was intensely conscious of God as a divine and loving Father, and that he dedicated his ministry to proclaiming the imminence of God’s kingdom, and to explaining how human creatures could transform themselves in preparation for that momentous time. He believed himself to be the Messiah, and the ’son of man’ foretold by the prophets. We know from the study of first-century Judaism, recently made accessible by the Qumran discoveries, that neither of these terms would have been understood as implying divinity: they merely denoted purified servants of God.
The term ’son of God’, frequently invoked in patristic and medieval thinking to prop up the doctrine of Jesus’s divinity, was in fact similarly unpersuasive: in the Old Testament and in wider Near Eastern usage it can be applied to kings, pharoahs, miracle workers and others. Yet when St Paul carried his version of the Christian message beyond Jewish boundaries into the wider gentile world, this image of Christ’s sonship was interpreted not metaphorically, but metaphysically. The resultant tale of controversies, anathemas and political interventions is complex; but what is clear is that the Hellenized Christ, who in one nature was of one substance with God, and in another nature was of one substance with humanity, bore no significant resemblance to the ascetic prophet who had walked the roads of Galilee some three centuries before.
From the Muslim viewpoint, this desemiticising of Jesus was a catastrophe. Three centuries after Nicea, the Quran stated:
‘The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers the like of whom had passed away before him . . . O people of the Book – stress not in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of a people who went astray before you.’ (Surat al-Ma’ida, 75)
And again:
‘O people of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, nor utter anything concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say ‘Three’. Desist, it will be better for you. God is only One God. . . . The Messiah would never have scorned to be a slave of God.’ (Surat al-Nisa, 171-2)
The Qur’anic term for ‘exaggeration’ used here, ghuluww, became a standard term in Muslim heresiography for any tendency, Muslim or otherwise, which attributed divinity to a revered and charismatic figure. We are told that during the life of the Prophet’s son-in-law Ali, a few of his devoted followers from Iraq, where Hellenistic and pagan cultures formed the background of many converts, described him as God, or the vehicle of a Divine incarnation – hulul. The claim of course irritated Ali profoundly, and he banished those who made it from his sight; but even today marginal Islamic sectaries like the Kizilbash of Turkey, or the Alawites of the Syrian mountains, maintain an esoteric cosmology which asserts that God became incarnate in Ali, and then in the succession of Imams who descended from him.
Mainstream Islam, however, despite its rapid spread over non-Semitic populations, never succumbed to this temptation. The best-known of all devotional poems about the Blessed Prophet Muhammad: the famous Mantle Ode of al-Busairi, defines the frontier of acceptable veneration:
‘Renounce what the Christians claim concerning their prophet,
Then praise him as you will, and with all your heart.
For although he was of human nature,
He was the best of humanity without exception.’
A few years previously, the twelfth-century theologian Al-Ghazali had summed up the dangers of ghuluww when he wrote that the Christians had been so dazzled by the divine light reflected in the mirror like heart of Jesus, that they mistook the mirror for the light itself, and worshipped it. But what was happening to Jesus was not categorically distinct from what happened, and may continue to happen, to any purified human soul that has attained the rank of sainthood. The presence of divine light in Jesus’ heart does not logically entail a doctrine of Jesus’ primordial existence as a hypostasis in a divine trinity.
There are other implications of Trinitarian doctrine which concern Muslims. Perhaps one should briefly mention our worries about the doctrine of Atonement, which implies that God is only capable of really forgiving us when Jesus has borne our just punishment by dying on the cross. John Hick has remarked that ‘a forgiveness that has to be bought by full payment of the moral debt is not in fact forgiveness at all.’ More coherent, surely, is the teaching of Jesus himself in the parable of the prodigal son, who is fully forgiven by his father despite the absence of a blood sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. The Lord’s Prayer, that superb petition for forgiveness, nowhere implies the need for atonement or redemption.
Jesus’ own doctrine of God’s forgiveness as recorded in the Gospels is in fact entirely intelligible in terms of Old Testament and Islamic conceptions. ‘God can forgive all sins’, says the Quran. And in a well-known hadith of the Prophet we are told:
On the Day of Judgement, a herald angel shall cry out [God's word] from beneath the Throne, saying: ‘O nation of Muhammad! All that was due to me from you I forgive you now, and only the rights which you owed one another remain. Thus forgive one another, and enter Heaven through My Mercy.’
And in a famous incident:
It is related that a boy was standing under the sun on a hot summer’s day. He was seen by a woman concealed among the people, who made her way forwards vigorously until she took up the child and clutched him to her breast. Then she turned her back to the valley to keep the heat away from him, saying, ‘My son! My son!’ At this the people wept, and were distracted from everything that they were doing. Then the Messenger of God, upon whom be peace, came up. They told him of what had happened, when he was delighted to see their their compassion. Then he gave them glad news, saying: ‘Marvel you at this woman’s compassion for her son?’ and they said that they did. And he declared, ‘Truly, the Exalted God shall be even more compassionate towards you than is this woman towards her son.’ At this, the Muslims went their ways in the greatest rapture and joy.
This same hadith presents an interesting feature of Muslim assumptions about the divine forgiveness: its apparently ‘maternal’ aspect. The term for the Compassionate and Loving God used in these reports, al-Rahman, was said by the Prophet himself to derive from rahim, meaning a womb. Some recent Muslim reflection has seen in this, more or less rightly I think, a reminder that God has attributes which may metaphorically be associated with a ‘feminine, maternal’ character, as well as the more ‘masculine’ predicates such as strength and implacable justice. This point is just beginning to be picked up by our theologians. There is not time to explore the matter fully, but there is a definite and interesting convergence between the Christology of feminist theologians such as Rosemary Reuther, and that of Muslims.
In a recent work, the Jordanian theologian Hasan al-Saqqaf reaffirms the orthodox belief that God transcends gender, and cannot be spoken of as male or female, although His attributes manifest either male or female properties, with neither appearing to be preponderant. This gender-neutral understanding of the Godhead has figured largely in Karen Armstrong’s various appreciations of Islam, and is beginning to be realised by other feminist thinkers as well. For instance, Maura O’Neill in a recent book observes that ‘Muslims do not use a masculine God as either a conscious or unconscious tool in the construction of gender roles.’
One of Reuther’s own main objections to the Trinity, apart from its historically and Biblically sketchy foundations, is its emphatic attribution of masculine gender to God. She may or may not be exaggerating when she blames this attribution for the indignities suffered by Christian women down the ages. But she is surely being reasonable when she suggests that the male-dominated Trinity is marginalising to women, as it suggests that it was man who was made in the image of God, with woman as a revised and less theomorphic model of himself.
Partly under her influence, American Protestant liturgy has increasingly tried to de-masculinise the Trinity. Inclusive language lectionaries now refer to God as ‘Father and Mother’. The word for Christ’s relationship to God is now not ’son’ but ‘child’. And so on, often to the point of absurdity or straightforward doctrinal mutilation.
Here in Britain, the feminist bull was grasped by the horns when the BCC Study Commission on Trinitarian Doctrine Today issued its report in 1989. The Commission’s response here was as follows:
‘The word Father is to be construed apophatically, that is, by means of a determined ‘thinking away’ of the inappropriate – and in this context that means masculine – connotations of the term. What will remain will be an orientation to personhood, to being in relation involving origination in a personal sense, not maleness.’
Now, one has to say that this is unsatisfactory. The concept of fatherhood, stripped of everything which has male associations, is not fatherhood at all. It is not even parenthood, since parenthood has only two modalities. The Commissioners are simply engaging in the latest exegetical manoeuvres required by the impossible Trinitarian doctrine, which are, as John Biddle, the father of Unitarianism put it, ‘fitter for conjurers than for Christians.’
The final point that occurs to me is that the Trinity, mapped out in awesome detail in the several volumes devoted to it by Aquinas, attempts to presume too much about the inner nature of God. I mentioned earlier that Islam has historically been more sceptical of philosophical theology as a path to God than has Christianity, and in fact the divine unity has been affirmed by Muslims on the basis of two supra-rational sources: the revelation of the Quran, and the unitive experience of the mystics and the saints. That God is ultimately One, and indivisible, is the conclusion of all higher mysticism, and Islam, as a religion of the divine unity par excellence, has linked faith with mystical experience very closely. An eighteenth century Bosnian mystic, Hasan Kaimi, expressed this in a poem which even today is chanted and loved by the people of Sarajevo:
O seeker of truth, it is your heart’s eye you must open.
Know the Divine Unity today, through the path of love for Him.
If you object: ‘I am waiting for my mind to grasp His nature’,
Know the Divine Unity today, through the path of love for Him.
Should you wish to behold the visage of God,
Surrender to Him, and invoke His names,
When your soul is clear a light of true joy shall shine.
Know the Divine Unity today, through the path of love for Him.
Abdal-Hakim Murad 1996
Another look at those Judeo-Christian values: John Calivin
Posted: January 3, 2010 Filed under: Christianity Leave a comment »John Calvin (born 1509 in France) was the greatest systematic theologian of the Reformation. His best known work is the Institutes of the Christian Religion which is still the basis for ‘Reformed’ (evangelical) churches, which are very strong in many parts of the world today.
The law of a Christian state, according to Calvin, is the Bible. The task of the clergy is to interpret and teach that law, while the task of the state is to enforce it. Calvin held enormous authority over the government of Geneva and all aspects of civil as well as religious life.
In Geneva Calivin enforced attendance at weekly sermons; prohibited gambling, drunkenness, dancing, profane songs, and immodest dress; forbade all forms of the theatre. The colours of clothing, hair styles, and amounts of food permissible at the table were regulated. It was a criminal offence to speak ill of Calvin or the rest of the clergy. The press was severely censored, with writings judged to be immoral and books devoted to Catholicism or other false teaching forbidden. Punishment for first offences was usually a fine and for repetition of minor crimes, banishment. Fornication was punishable by exile, and adultery, blasphemy, and idolatry by death.
Michael Servetus, a fugitive from ecclesiastical authorities, appeared in Geneva on 13 August 1553. Servetus was a Spaniard who boldly criticised Christian dogma. In particular, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. He had been in contact with Muslims and Jews and had been impressed by their persuasive arguments.
Calvin had Servetus arrested and during the earlier stages of the trial Calvin advocated the death penalty, basing his argument mainly on the Mosaic law, which was, “He that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death,” Lev. 24:16 a law which Calvin considered as binding as the decalogue and applicable to heresy as well.
Calvin’s decision to kill Servetus was fully approved by ALL the leading Reformers of the time. Melanchthon, the theological head of the Lutheran Church, fully and repeatedly justified Calvin’s killing of Servetus and even held it up as a model for imitation. Nearly a year after the death of Servetus he wrote to Calvin: “I have read your book, in which you dearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus …. To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man.” Luther and the theologians of Wittenberg had approved of death sentences for some Anabaptists in Germany whom they considered dangerous heretics, adding that it was cruel to punish them, ‘but more cruel to allow them to damn the ministry of the Word and destroy the kingdom of the world’ and Zwingli had not objected to a death sentence against a group of six Anabaptists in Switzerland.
A modern apologist for Calvin states ‘Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event, and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth century is entirely out of harmony with our twentieth century ideas.’
A contemporary of Calvin wrote of the ‘best men in the sixteenth century’:
‘the Genevan authorities put half-green wood around the feet of Servetus and a wreath strewn with sulfur on his head. It took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in such a fire, while the people of Geneva stood around to watch him suffer and slowly die.’
So when Sami says ‘the next time you hear about those Judeo-Christian values, just remember that that’s a lie, it’s really Liberal modern western values’ he couldn’t be more spot on…
To our Christian friends: Why Attack the Prophet of Islam, Have you read the Bible?
Posted: December 30, 2009 Filed under: Christianity, Videos 1 Comment »Official Response to, Head of the Christian People’s Alliance Party, Alan Craig’s article: ‘Off with their heads’
Posted: December 27, 2009 Filed under: MDI Press Release Leave a comment »Monday 21st December 2009 MDI Press Release
In the Name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful.
By Dr Tabasum Hussain
On the 9th November 2009, Alan Craig on his public blog site, wrote:
“I’ve joined a Christian debating team called Codgers and recently found myself enjoying the new experience of leading on a couple of Muslim/Christian debates…the second was ‘Jihad on trial’ with Sami Zataari of the Muslim Debate Initiative. They’ve been well-attended and amicable affairs with friendly relations across the faiths. The Muslim organisers are pleasant guys (yes, only guys, no girls of course – this is Islam) who seem genuinely interested in grappling with the issues.”
In his latest article, ‘Off with their heads?’ Alan Craig takes a shot at the Muslim Debate Initiative (MDI) and Islam in general when he states that there are no Muslim women on the MDI team. Reading a recent blog comment below the article someone stated that perhaps Alan should be given the benefit of the doubt in having missed the fact that I, Dr. Tabasum Hussain, am a female member of the MDI team!
It would seem there is little room for generosity in giving someone benefit of the doubt when it comes to individuals resembling Britain’s version of the American Christian Far-right, who make sweeping assumptions about Muslim organisations and Islam excluding women without really having a clue about what Islam actually says or the membership of the organisations he demeans. Mr. Craig took it upon himself to write an article and make a baseless statement about MDI without doing his research (or perhaps conveniently ignoring certain facts to make an invalid point against Islam). As a politician Mr. Craig should be expected at the very least to do his research by simply navigating the MDI website (for which he has a link in his article) and read the member profiles to discover that Dr.Tabasum Hussain is a female member. Perhaps Mr. Craig assumed that the ‘Dr’ title means ‘it’s just another guy’, and did not bother to read that it is a woman’s profile. If so, then he would be both a victim as well as a propagator of the very same gender biases and misogynistic world views that he publicly denounces – or did he conveniently side-step my existence as a part of deliberate strategy to attack Islam and Muslims?
Does Mr. Craig have any excuse for his ignorance of the existence of myself (a Female speaker in MDI)? Well since joining the Christian Evangelical organisation ‘The Codgers’, Alan Craig recently had to mediate a misunderstanding between MDI and The Codgers, as regards to a promised debate between myself and a member of their group. This debate which was meant to take place before Summer 09 (and constitute the 3rd MDI debate to date!), but this had been delayed by The Codgers who cited an unexpected lack of availability in the schedules of their speakers. I had asked Codgers to send one of their members to debate on an MDI platform, and was hoping to have one debate in the UK shortly before I relocated to Canada, but unfortunately this didn’t happen.
After I had left to Canada, the current acting Director of MDI, Abdullah al Andalusi was outraged at the Codgers apparent stalling of scheduling a debate with myself (which had to that point been going on for 5 months!). Abdullah then intervened and expressed his deep disappointment with the Codgers, and warned of a cessation of any debates with any of the members of the Codgers until they had confirmed a time and date to debate myself. Alan Craig, being a member of the Codgers, resolved to mediate between the Codgers and MDI. This led to representatives of MDI meeting up with The Codgers over coffee, to resolve the ‘misunderstanding’.
The question is, how and why did Alan make such comments that there was ‘no women’ in MDI, when he knew perfectly well there was, and even had offered to mediate a dispute that arose MDI was outraged due to the Codgers seemly unenthusiastic approach to debating a Muslim female member of the MDI team?
Furthermore, before Alan Craig’s claims he meant there are no women in the decision making team of MDI. MDI was and remains a group of semi-autonomous Muslim activists and speakers that work as a team. Working as a ‘team’ does not necessarily mean that organising all the debates is left to ‘one person’. Regardless of my absence from the UK, I have been trying to organise a debate with a female member of ‘The Codgers’ Christian debating team (as Mr. Craig is well aware of), so that the debate can coincide with one of my return visits to London at a month’s notice. Alan Craig was well aware of this. Abdullah only intervened when he saw no progress from the Codgers side. Now that there is a resolution in place, we shall see if the The Codgers keep to their word on that one.
Lastly, the MDI team is definitely recruiting both women and men that choose to step forward — I am just the first woman to step forward. The MDI does not take any old conscripts to bolster their credentials; women (like the men) choose to join. Please take the time to navigate our website and read the MDI team member profiles. What may come as another shock is that the Muslim men of the MDI team did not object to a woman becoming a team member. However, Mr. Craig may claim that women are not at the forefront, so please note that I am the only one with the ‘Dr’ title amongst all the Muslim men on the MDI website so far (and hence the most qualified member of MDI at the time of writing!). Furthermore, North America’s largest Islamic organisation is headed by Dr. Ingrid Mattson, a woman as well as a convert from Christianity (that’s what the North Americans call a double whammy!). If anything I find it patronising and/or insulting when women are often simply put under the limelight for reasons pertaining to political correctness or strategy. I do not care much for playing the role of “Mrs. Jack Van Impe” nor do I necessarily feel that a woman’s input and activism is only commendable when she is in the front lines of fire.
At the end of the day the MDI team have become somewhat accustomed to Mr. Craig’s ignorant and often hateful comments about Islam in general, and in his failing to get his facts straight on this whole issue he himself does a great job of highlighting the lack of credibility in anything else he may blurt out against Islam, Prophet Muhammad (saaw), Women, and Muslim organisations. Overall, this is an embarrassing reflection of how some of our Christian debating friends need to get their facts straight, or else cease making comments and stick to preaching the New Testament, with all it’s ‘Liberal’ teachings on women.
Unfortunately, Alan Craig has not learned from his lesson (and yes, he still has not retracted his fallacious statement after we pointed it out to him) and continues to attack us and Islam in regards to our alleged gender bias:
Alan Craig -15/12/09 on his official blog, he wrote:
“Last Thursday I was panellist at a well-promoted ‘Big Debate’ at Conway Hall in Bloomsbury. It was organised by the Muslim Debate Initiative on the subject ‘Islamification of Britain: Myth or Reality?’… 400 people listened for nearly 3 hours while the six-man panel (no women of course, this is Islam) debated the hot issue.”
MDI did attempt to contact Melanie Philips and invited her to attend as a debate panellist, but she did not take up our offer. According to Alan Craig’s statement, it would seem he does not consider Melanie to be a woman!
Finally, if Mr. Craig feels that this is an exaggerated response, generalizing based on a single incident, or assuming the worst about the other’s intentions, then he should take this moment in time to reconsider his modus operandi towards his Muslim `friends’.
Dr. Tabasum Hussain (Muslim female MDI speaker)
————————————————
The MDI Press Release does not mention that we recently welcomed another woman to our MDI Team in London, Nazli Ali. You can read her profile here
Our New Blog
Posted: December 26, 2009 Filed under: MDI Leave a comment »Welcome to the new Muslim Debate Initiative blog.
Here you can get live updates, thoughts, comments and the latest in-depth goings on in the world of Muslims debate and discussion. The blog will be updated soon with the latest news and info, plus behind-the-scenes news behind the most controversial discourses happening around the world.
So watch this space, or subscribe to the RSS Feeds, to keep your finger on the pulse!
Muslims debate the BNP: Islamification of Britain: Myth or Reality?
Posted: December 10, 2009 Filed under: Debates, Islam, MDI, Videos 8 Comments »At long last we have the full unabridged Muslim Debate Initiative debate from December 2009. I chair and moderate this event and open with a brief speech about how I came to embrace Islam. I believe this was the first time in the UK that Muslims had debated the British National Party. The event was reported around the world by CNN, the BBC Arabic Service and Press TV (amongst others).
Pre-event Media Coverage
Video of the Debate
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Media Coverage:
Press TV:
BBC Arabic:
