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’.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Obscure Christian Demagogue, Sam Shamoun refuses to deny the Bible DOES have forgeries
Posted: December 19, 2011 Filed under: articles by Sami Zaatari, Christianity, The Bible 3 Comments »I recently made a post mentioning how Sam Shamoun quoted a forged verse from the Bible in trying to make a point against Islam:
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2011/12/18/sam-shamoun-quotes-a-biblical-forgery/
The posting obviously rattled the missionary’s cage as we are about to see, as he left the following message in response:
Sam Shamoun Hey folks, that troll Sami Zaatari posted this article in response to this blog spot: http://thedebateinitiative.com/2011/12/18/sam-shamoun-quotes-a-biblical-forgery/. He thinks that I posted this verse, which is fine since this will come to backfire against him. He doesn’t realize that whenever the other admins post something here, the same picture shows up. This is typical behavior of Muslim dwagandists since they are following the example of Allah and his false prophet whom he shamed and humiliated (http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/10/who-killed-muhammad.html). However, the admins and Christians need to learn from these Christophobes and start studying up on textual criticism since a comparison of the Bible’s textual transmission with the Quran’s shows that Allah again lied to Muhammad when he said he would preserve his unholy deception from corruption… Now Sami make sure you mention this post as well.
(http://www.facebook.com/SamShamoun)
I hope Sam Shamoun is happy I mentioned his post? Shamoun is complaining that it wasn’t him who made the posting, even though the facebook page is named after him, links to his articles, links to his videos, links to his events, and even speaks like him when posting a message! So forgive me if I assumed it was Sam Shamoun making a posting on a facebook page titled Sam Shamoun.
Now having said all of that I want everybody to remember the main point of my original post, which was to merely point out that a BIBLICAL FORGERY WAS USED. Now does Shamoun refute that argument? No, instead all he does is argue that the text of the Quran is corrupt! Well as Shamoun’s colleague David Wood often likes to say, this is known as the tu quoque fallacy. So for example if person A accuses person B of being a liar, person B will merely respond back by telling person A you’re a liar as well! Shamoun has committed that very fallacy here, instead of defending his Bible; he merely says oh well the Quran is corrupt as well! Yet that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible does have a forgery in it, namely in John 8 about the story of the adulteress. So even if we grant Shamoun’s argument, all he has shown is that both the Quran and his Bible are textually corrupted, good job Sam!
Imagine you were a Christian hoping for a response from Sam Shamoun, a response to defend his Bible, and all he can muster up is throwing the accusation back against the Quran! That Christian still expects an answer regarding the accusation against the Bible, okay the Quran is corrupt, but what about my own Holy Book is there an actual forgery in it? Sadly if you are a Christian the hard truth is that the story of the adulteress is UNAMIOUSLY accepted as a forgery by textual critics of the Bible. Virtually all academics in this field accept this conclusion.
As for the supposed corruption of the Quran, please visit the following links that discusses the history, preservation, and textual integrity of the Holy Quran:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
In conclusion all I will say is the following: Sam Shamoun agrees that there are Biblical forgeries, and with missionaries like him, who needs non-believing critics?!
Obscure Christian Demagogue, Sam Shamoun quotes a Biblical Forgery!
Posted: December 18, 2011 Filed under: articles by Sami Zaatari, Christianity, The Bible 2 Comments »I was recently browsing Sam Shamoun’s page on Facebook as he has been making comments about one of MDI’s latest debate that took place. What caught my eye was a new post he made on his page. He posted the following verse:
”If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7)
The above verse was quoted by him alongside a picture of a Muslim lady supposedly getting stoned (the picture is not real btw). So why is this interesting? Well the verse he just happens to quote is an admitted forgery! The whole story of the adultress is a forged story that was inserted into the Gospel of John by a certain scribe. Now one would expect that someone like Sam Shamoun would know such a basic fact! Maybe Shamoun needs to go pick some books up and start learning the basics.
Shamoun’s Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/SamShamoun
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.
