Monday, March 15, 2010
Bible prophecy: is the rise of Muhammad and/or Islam foretold?
The Bible contains numerous prophetic passages concerning many important events and peoples throughout its pages. The Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires are just a few of the more important ones that immediately come to mind.
For a number of years now, I have asked myself this question: Does the Bible predict the rise of Muhammad and/or Islam? One would think that this massive cultural/political/religious movement, which has been inextricably linked with Christians and Jews for well over millennia now, would at the very least be mentioned in the Bible. To make a very long story ‘short’, yes, I have come to believe that it does.
In this post, I will examine one such passage: Isaiah 63:1-7:
1 Who is this who comes from Edom, With garments of glowing colors from Bozrah, This One who is majestic in His apparel, Marching in the greatness of His strength? "It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save."
2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like the one who treads in the wine press?
3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
4 "For the day of vengeance was in My heart, And My year of redemption has come.
5 "And I looked, and there was no one to help, And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold; So My own arm brought salvation to Me; And My wrath upheld Me.
6 "And I trod down the peoples in My anger, And made them drunk in My wrath, And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."
7 I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, According to all that the LORD has granted us, And the great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them according to His compassion, And according to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses. (NASB)
Though commentators traditionally apply the above to Jesus Christ, I think that Muhammad is clearly a better fit.
Muhammad was first of all an Edomite (see information below); Jesus was not.
Muhammad spent a lot of time in Bozrah during his merchant days; Jesus never went to Bozrah.
Muhammad was a military leader, hence the “red apparel”, “garments like the one who treads in the wine press”.
Muhammad for quite sometime was essentially “alone” in Mecca; he was persecuted and had his life threatened on many occasions by the Meccans. However, he later exacted vengeance on the Meccans, and “trod down the peoples in My anger”.
Muhammad constantly praised God and contrasts the blessings “granted us” with the “great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them”.
Excursus: Edomites and Arabs
The Bible strongly implies that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau (Edomites) were closely linked through marriage/bloodlines and geography. Esau married one of Ishmael’s daughters (see Gen. 28:9; 36:3); and Ezekiel 25: 12-14 links Edom with Teman and Dedan, indicating that the descendants of Esau ranged from North Arabia (i.e. Edom/Idumea) all the way thru South Arabia (i.e. Dedan). Pslam 83:6 links the “tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites” together. Note the following comments:
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states:
We also find northern Arabian tribes mentioned among the descendants of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4) and Hagar (25:12-15) and among the descendants of Esau (Gen. 36). (1979 edition - Vol. 1, p. 220.)
A Baptist website has the following to say:
The descendants of Ishmael and Esau would remain closely associated throughout their history. (In Psalm 83 -- as we shall see, the descendants of Esau and those of Ishmael are found in alliance against End-Time Israel.) As God had foretold, a great people sprang from Ishmael. Today's Arabs are the family of Ishmael grown great!…Consider the additional fact that Edomites intermarried with the stocks of Ishmael and Canaan. The Edomites were descendants of Esau (who was also called Edom), the elder son of Isaac and Rebekah. Earlier, when Jacob and Esau were yet in Rebekah's womb, "the children struggled together within her" (Gen 25:22). [LINK]
Further, Arab historians in the past have usually divided the ancient Arab people into two major groups: the pure Arabs (identified with Southern Arabia); and the mixed Arabs (identified with Northern and Western Arabia)—Muhammad and his descendants are part of the mixed Arabs (see Thomas Patrick Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, pp. 18, 19.).
Looking forward to others thoughts and reflections on this passage from the Bible.
Grace and peace,
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
250 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 250 of 250With the name of God,
Peace be unto you.
Ken you state,
"And no corruption is proved; and in fact, the Qur’an clearly says that the previous revelations were not corrupt. (Surah 2:136; 5:47; 10:94)"
In a previous post you also said,
"Again, the Qur'an proves that the Bible was not corrupted because it says, "go and ask the people of the book" ( Surah 10:94) and "let the people of the Scripture judge by what Allah has revealed therein" (Surah 5:47)"
Ken I don't blame you for taking this line since this is what James White probably taught you guys in one of his 'classes on Islam'.
Though James has of yet to reveal to us who is teachers of Islam are. (Probably another online mill degree).
Any how I was wondering what you think about context and how important it is when looking at any particular issue in the Qur'an or the Bible.
Do you think that context is important only when looking at the Bible or is it important when looking at the Qur'an too? Do we use one criteria for the Bible and than become inconsistent with the Qur'an?
I'm just curious if it would be possible for you to post the verses you have given above with the verse/sentence that comes just before the one you quote and the one that comes just after it.
Would you please do that so that we maybe able to look at it and see if what James is telling you people is the right approach?
Ken I have given a link to you about the supposed idea that the Qur'an tells Muslims to accept the 22 books of the New Testament and the 46 books of the Old Testament. I don't know if you have looked at it.
With the name of God,
Peace be unto you.
Ken you say,
"What is the Qur’an trying to say there in Surah 37:107? It clearly shows some kind of understanding of a substitionary sacrifice."
You know Ken I actually find it a bit odd that for a change you ask me 'What is the Qur'an trying to say here rather than teach me what the Qur'an is trying to say.
This is a more refreshing approach.
Usually I am told by you that the Qur'an is talking about a false trinity, and it is confirming the Bible, and on and on.
But I think you already know what it says correct? I mean look at the verbiage that flowed from you right after the quote.
Ken would you be suprised if I told you the verse is about the comming of Jesus who was foreshadowed to be the sacrificial lamb/goat to take away the sins of the world that surely brings death. That this verse talks about Genesis chapter 3 and the 'fall of man' and that this verse talks Isaiah 53, Psalms 22 and Psalms 16 and Hosea 6:2 and Zechariah 12:8-10 which all indisputably point to Jesus!
Would you be suprised if I told you the Qur'an is indeed the revelation from God and that Muhammed (saw) was the comforter and that the Qur'an really confirms Christian theology but only came to check the evil influence of the RCC.
And false Christian misconceptions.
It's all there Jesus didn't die on the cross he died upon a tree! (The tree of life!)
There is no Trinity the Oneness Pentacostals are correct God is unitarian.
God doesn't have a son (begotten) Jesus is the word of God (John 1:1) and that it's time for you all to see this as the last boat home. However, Allah guides whom he wills and he leaves to stray whom he wills Ken.
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he ate food (thus attacking docetic beliefs).
The Qur'an has prophecies that in the future Sarah Palin will bring America back into righteousness and that Israel will be restored as the rightful heir of God's people.
The Qur'an has prophecies about the final expose of the RCC the great harlot who slays the saints.
That every tongue will confess and every knee will bow that Jesus is Lord to the glory of Allah the father.
And yes on a side note the Qur'an also mentions about (the atom smasher in Switzerland and a brief mention about the invention of the waffle)
Is it just me or do I need to go get a cup of coffee?
Love you all. :)
Peace be unto you.
GrandVerb, it is remarkable those prophecies you posted here. I don't totally agree with all of them, but God does have His way of reaching people, even if they are of a different religion. Sometimes we think God is bound to our religion, but God is God, and He reveals and does for whomever He wills.
Peace.
With the name of God,
Peace be unto you all.
I do hope you all realize that I was being just a tad facetious.
I mean if we can't have a bit of levity than what are we?
I mean you don't know how bad it is to be Muslim these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1uMOLPXfzo < Watch this video and you to will be shocked! Even the Amish have trained their goats to scream out 'bomb' whenever they see a Muslim!
This video was taken of me walking through an Amish village in Pennsylvania and the goat keeps screaming 'bomb'!
Poor little guy he wasn't crying wolf he was trying to warn them.
There's a Muslim in town! ;)
Salaam O Alaykum to the Grandverbalizer19 –
I sincerely wish you the peace of God, which only comes through repentance and faith in Christ, Al Masih, and His work of redemption in the once for all eternal sacrifice on the cross and His powerful victorious resurrection from the dead. John 14:27; Hebrews 10:10; I Peter 3:18; Romans 5:1-11; I Corinthians 15:1-9.
Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
Ken in my blog entry seen here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-inconsistency-and.html
I have exposed (don't know if there is a more polite way of putting it) James White and his inconsistent methods of approaching Muslims.
I don't expect you to go and read the above post
Actually, I already read it around March 16 after you first came to this blog post and I went and read a lot of your material at your web-blog. I don’t have the time or resources to check everything out; but I do try to look at your valid points. I just have not had time to research what you have written, but I did read that article and many of your other articles. Many of your other blog posts are very ad hominem and polemical also. I agree with you against Benny Hinn and others who are false teachers of greed and teach the false doctrines of the “word of faith”/name it claim it/prosperity gospel. Their teachings are an abomination.
. . . just like I didn't expect you to have read my post about your repeated issue of saying the Qur'an tells us to accept your 22 books of the New Testament.
When I have time, I will try to say something about that also.
You also wrote:
Ken I don't blame you for taking this line since this is what James White probably taught you guys in one of his 'classes on Islam'.
Actually, I knew this truth (that the Qur’an proves that the Bible was not corrupted – Surah 2:136; 5:47; 10:94) years before I had every heard of Dr. White, and before he even began his study on Islam and his first debate against a Muslim. You see, I started friendships and discussing spiritual things and preaching the gospel to Muslims in 1983. I have had 26 years of “one on one” with Muslims (Arabs, Iranians, Turks), and I treat them as people and I have sat down and drank coffee and hot tea and ate shisk kebab and had them into my home and visited them in their homes for years. I sincerely love Muslims and want them to find true peace from their sin and guilt.
So, Dr. White did not teach me this; but he is correct. He is a good believer who knows the textual variant issues of the NT and can go “toe to toe” with the liberals and skeptics (the approach that began with the Tubingen school liberal/higher critical approach, as you pointed out) and he approaches it with faith and honesty.
I will try and address some of your other points later, as I have time to intelligently interact with them.
oops - typo --
years before I had every heard of Dr. White,
should be:
years before I had even heard of Dr. White, . . .
I don't expect you to go and read the above post
Again, I did read it around March 17-18 (?)
just like I didn't expect you to have read my post about your repeated issue of saying the Qur'an tells us to accept your 22 books of the New Testament.
I have now read all of that and I understand your points, which is a presuppositional Islamic point of view - that the Qur'an is a priori true and so whatever disagrees with it is false, (was added or taken away; and corrupted, etc.) You can believe that if you want; you are free to do that.
I don't have time to cover all of your points now; but every issue you bring up is answerable from a Christian point of view. If I have time, I will address the details later.
Your two main points seem to be
1. The Qur'an is true; therefore the Scriptures before have been lost or corrupt and the current Bibles with Torah, Zobur (Psalms) and Injeel (Gospel) are corrupted and incomplete. Right?
2. The whole argument of 22 vs. 27 NT books and "who decided which books were inspired?", etc. and the OT (39 vs. 46 books) - there are several things that can be said about this.
continued in next post
To Grandverbalizer19
Continued
a. I did not find where in your article what you are talking about, specifically, 22 vs. 27 NT books? The Protestants, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox all agree with each other on the 27 NT books. The same list that can be discerned from Origen's writings around 250 AD, and specifically listed and enumerated by Athanasius in 367 AD.
so tell us what you mean by the 22 books of the NT ? The protestants, RCs, and EO agree with each other on this.
b. "Decided" ? or "Discerned" ?
The Protestant position is that all of these books existed as individual books and letters written from around 45 -69 AD or 45 - 96 AD. Depending on if one believes John's writings were written before 70 AD.
The Early church later collected and discerned which books were God -breathed and put them all under one book cover (like an anthology). That is why the list of all of them under one book cover is later, either 250 or 367 AD. The Muratorian Canon has most of the NT listed in it and it dates from around 140 AD. Some scholars believe that it was the Christians who invented the codex form (which is where our modern book form comes from). Before this, they were individual scrolls or pages. (pages, leaves, which is close to the literal Arabic meaning of "Suhuf"
صحف
Anyway, that is a debate between RCs and Protestants mainly. The RCs believe their church "decided" dogmatically which books were canon; whereas we believe the books were already "God-breathed" at the time of their writing, and they were all written by an apostle or close associate of an apostle (James and Jude are half brothers of Jesus) and very early, from 45 -69 AD; maybe Jude in 80 AD. Personally, I believe that the Gospel of John, 1-3 John, and Revelation were all written before 70 AD. I believe 2 Peter was written by Peter himself before he was executed by Nero in 67 AD. I Peter was written by Silvanus / Silas (1 Peter 5:12) , Peter either dictating it to him, and Silvanus corrected his grammar; or writing a smoother Greek original and Peter giving his approval of it. The author is Peter, but Silvanus/Silas was a secretary (amanuensis). The Greek of I Peter is a much higher quality grammatically than 2 Peter. 2 Peter 3:16 affirms all of Paul's letters, and 2 Tim. 3:16 calls all true Scripture God-breathed. This was written before Paul was executed in 67 Ad under Nero also. James was written around 45-50; Mark around 48-50; Matthew around 50-55 and Luke in 60/61 and Acts in 61/62.
They are the God-breathed/inspired Scriptures. All Paul's 13 letters included. Since they are true, early, and not corrupted and we have them; no matter how you try and spin it; the Qur'an is necessarily not true since it comes after them and claims things that are contradictory to them.
I will try to answer details later. And also about the Magi, etc.
Hi all,
Wow, this is a first for AF: 200 plus posts! I did not know that after the 200th post, a separate page was created to display the subsequent comments.
Anyway, have a few brief comments to make before I go back to my studies for the next thread.
First, to GV: are you aware that the “substitution” theory of the atonement is not the only theory that has been proposed by Christian theologians/writers, and that it was a rather late development ? (See THIS WEB ARTICLE for a general introduction to the various theories.)
Second, to Ken:
GV can correct me if I am all wet on this, but it seems that his major ‘beef’ with James White is that while he on one hand complains about Muslim apologists use of ‘liberal’ scholarship when dealing with the Bible, James in turn utilizes ‘liberal’ scholarship in his deconstruction of the Qur’an—that sure seems to be a ‘double-standard’.
Back to ‘work’…
Grace and peace,
David
David – yes, I think that is the issue that GV19 is making – that a Christian should not use sources that have a presupposition against Islam when they don’t like Muslims using liberal and skeptic sources against Christianity. However, there is a difference between an anti-supernatural bias against all miracles and prophesy and God’s ability to give revelation vs. a presupposition against Islam itself. These are two different things.
Do you and GV see the difference?
To the Grandverbalizer19-
Again, I wish you true peace that can only come through Isa Al Masih. (John 14:6; 14:27)
I just went back over GV19s blog and the 2 videos (one from some Muslims and the other is Dr. White’s answer to their accusations) he posted accusing James White of inconsistency.
Dr. White admitted that he quoted the wrong reference/resource and that in the heat of the debate he did have time to read the htlm text fast. I can honestly see how that would be difficult.
He pointed out the controversy between Shia sources and Sunni sources ( and this probably gets to the heart of the division between the 2 groups in Islam). Ok, you don't accept the Shia sources and you don't accept western scholars who wrote articles in the $ 4,000 book form of the Encyclopedia of Islam. ($ 700 in CD form) Personally, I see nothing wrong with using those sources, though I don't know about them and Dr. White seems to be up front about what happened.
Just a few other things:
1. He admitted his mistake
2. Shia sources are fair game to use for us westerners to try and study and understand Islam and how it came about; especially since the Ibn Masood issue and textual variants and the Shia belief that Muhammad passed his mantle down to Ali are at the heart of the issue of textual variants in the Qur’an and the Uthmanic revision and the whole Sunni vs. Shia divide. (I have know Iranians for 16-17 years and none of them like Umar nor Uthman - I wonder where their emotional hatred for these 2 leaders of Sunni Islam comes from?
3. You spend most of your article trying to judge Dr. White's body language and voice inflection, etc. That is just not right - Matthew 7:1-6 - that seems to be judging. There is nothing wrong with trying to gather one's thoughts (looking away), nothing wrong with saying "uhm", nothing wrong with licking one’s lips when speaking, touching one's nose, etc.; especially with this kind of heavy material, that requires a lot of energy and memory and using another language not native to the speaker. (pronouncing names, etc.)
4. In the first video that GV posts, Dr. White was speaking in his debate with Jalal AbuAlrub , right? – the video was cut between 2 different subjects – one was about holiness (Dr. White quotes Romans 6:1ff to refute Abualrub’s claim) and Jalal Abualrub’s claim that “Christians get forgiveness and can live like the devil”; the way the video was made is with emphasis on “I would never, never, never do that” – meant mis-represent a basic teaching of Islam in the way that Christianity was misrepresented by Jalal Abualrub; which that common Muslim misunderstanding does indeed do. The late Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik did and Naik still does the same kind of tactics all the time in their debates.
The second part was about quoting from an Internet Encyclopedia. ( I have not watched the whole debate, so I don’t know what issue that Jalal Abualrub was using an Encyclopedia on.
Those are two different issues, but the first video makes it appear that they are about the same issue.
Dr. White answered that to my satisfaction, he admitted he got the reference wrong; and the Encyclopedia that he did use was a more scholarly one that is quite expensive; and more scholarly than a lower level encyclopedia that apparently was used by Mr. Jalal Abualrub.
Besides, most of the time, as far as I can tell, Dr. White does quote from the Qur’an and Hadith and some of the best Muslim sources, like Ibn Kathir’s commentary.
oops - typo again:
Dr. White admitted that he quoted the wrong reference/resource and that in the heat of the debate he did have time to read the htlm text fast. I can honestly see how that would be difficult.
Should have been:
Dr. White admitted that he quoted the wrong reference/resource and that in the heat of the debate he did NOT have time to read the htlm text fast. I can honestly see how that would be difficult.
Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
"Yahya related to me from Malik from Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Ali from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab mentioned the Magians and said, "I do not know what to do about them." Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf said, "I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Follow the same sunna with them that you follow with the People of the Book." Muwatta Book #17, Hadith #17.24.43"
Thanks for the Qur’an and Hadith reverence on the Magi/Zoroastrians. I sincerely mean that - good to know and see this. This Hadith of Malik shows that Zoroastrians were originally not part of the people of the book (Jews, Christians, and the mysterious Sabeans) Most think the Sabeans are the modern Mandeans, Gnostics, who claim to be followers of John the Baptist, but many are unsure; – see Qur’an 2:62 – this verse does not include the Magi – and the Yusuf Ali and Pickthall and Farsi Qur’an I have all translate 22:17 differently that what you have written. Why is that?
This Hadith actually proves my point, they were later treated by the same as the policies of the “people of the Book” ( Ahl Al Kitab). The Muslim in this Hadith did not know how to treat them because they were originally not a part of the people of the book; and the Qur’an verse, 22:17 includes polytheists, and only says that Allah will judge between all groups in the last day, even between true believers (you left out that part at the beginning of the verse). It does not actually say that they are legitimate “people of the book”. The Qur’an came first, right ?, and then later the Hadith, as questions arose about how to deal with things as the Muslims conquered the Persian and Byzantine Empire, this seems to point to a later time period and tradition.
Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
"Matthew (please read Matthew chapter 2). I mean who were these people really? What would lead them to "follow a star"? Did they have some scriptures or connections? It all seems a bit odd."
I have read Matthew 2 many times, and in fact exegeted it for a sermon from the Greek text. The Magi were the wise men/astronomers/astrologers/scientists of the east – Persia, Babylon, Medes, and Arabs. There was not three of them; the text does not say three; but the tradition of three men comes from the three gifts. There could have been 20 or 100 of them. They came from many different nationalities/ethnicities. The dominant group was probably the Persians, with Medes (modern Kurds), as the main Empire in the east was the Persian Empire of that day. And they had Daniel’s prophesy of the Messiah to come after the 70 periods of 7 years. (seventy sevens or 490 years). Daniel prophesied of this in Shush (Susa) – today in Iran, Daniel’s tomb is there. See Daniel 9:1 ff and 9:24-27. The prophesy was spoken and written in Iran (Persia) around 539-536 BC. The Magi (Majusian – Iranian word) kept handing down the prophesy and watching the stars. God revealed Himself to them by a miracle star – “the time has come, for the appearing of the Messiah, the Prince, go to the land of Israel” – they went to the capital, Jerusalem, but later discovered that the Scriptures teach He would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2) They were probably from several nations (Persians, Kurds, Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians), the wise men of different cultures/ethnicities that were within the borders of the Persian Empire. (Similar to what happened in 1 Kings 4:30-34) They were non Jews who came to know and worship the Messiah first. God was rebuking the ethnic pride of the Jews by having non-Jews come and worship the Messiah first. Matthew is showing that God loves all nations; and He is seeking to show the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, and that He is the Messiah for all nations. See this theme of the “nations” (non Jewish nations) all through Matthew 1:1; 1:5-6; 2:1-12; 3:9; 4:15; 8:10-12; 10:18; 12:15-21; 15:1-32 (Jesus was testing the disciples natural racial prejudice to see if they could see the ethnic pride within their hearts (see also Mark 7:20-23) by going to Canaan/Syro-Phonecia (Tyre and Sidon/modern Lebanon- Lebanon was called Phonecia in ancient times and it included Syria usually together after the Greeks came) and to see if they recognize the sin deep in their hearts – Matthew 15:19-20; Mark 7:20-23 has “pride” and “foolishness”, an expanded list; and the parallel teachings with Acts 10-11 are striking. God is rebuking racial prejudice in both the Gospel passages and the Acts passages.); 21:43; 24:14; 28:18-20
So, yes, I believe in context, studying the historical background, and seeking the author’s intended meaning by studying the whole book, in this case Matthew and understanding his overall themes and emphasis.
GV19 wrote:
"I know for Christians this seems like the epi centre of God's focus, but please do understand that God is not the God of Israel and has never been a local tribal deity."
God, was never a “tribal deity”, but the Almighty Sovereign king of all nations, and from the very beginning chose Israel for a purpose – to bless all the other nations/peoples/families of the earth – Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; Psalm 67; 96; Isaiah 49:6; and see Galatians 3:6-8; 3:16; I Peter 2:9-10; Matthew 21:43.
With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.
Ken I appreciate the greeting given to me, however I must remind you.
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3)
So don't worry the problem isn't me at all Ken. It seems that the real issue is if I am one of those randomly selected to be part of the elect or not.
So don't worry I have no problem in accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. the Trinity, Calvinism, Baby baptism, the whole enchilada.
Thank you @ David. This is exactly my point.
I mean who is this Ibn Warraq who writes " Why I am Not a Muslim"
My understanding is that one of James White's teachers on Islam is Sam Shamoun author of the answering-islam web site.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Dictionary/index.html please search under 'I' for Ibn Warraq.
One would wonder why James White hasn't asked Sam to remove this material.
"Your utilization of Bart Ehrman/Crossan/Jesus Seminar/Bultman type arguments to criticize the Bible and say it is corrupt comes from the liberals/skeptics/agnostic scholars who don’t believe in God or that God can speak through prophets and apostles and infallible Scriptures."
The Christians like James White who are incosinstent in their modus operandi love to say 'the Qur'an gives a false understanding of the trinity' the Qur'an is quoting from the infancy gospel of Thomas, the protoevangelion of James, and so forth...
Who do you think were the first to advance these arguments @ Ken?
So, Dr. White did not teach me this; but he is correct. He is a good believer who knows the textual variant issues of the NT and can go “toe to toe” with the liberals and skeptics
As far as James going 'toe to toe' with the liberals I will not deny that he's a poster child for Toastmasters international. Public speaking is not an easy thing to do.
However, to say going toe to toe doesn't really help your cause when you get completely wiped out by the opposition.
You can see that from a Christian summary of the debate I posted here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-admits-bible-is.html
By the way when you look at the transcript and the Q and A session you can tell James was totally out of his element.
"I have now read all of that and I understand your points, which is a presuppositional Islamic point of view - that the Qur'an is a priori true and so whatever disagrees with it is false, (was added or taken away; and corrupted, etc.) You can believe that if you want; you are free to do that."
Well I'm glad you don't fault me for that Ken thank you.
You would be inconsistent if you did considering that you hold a presuppositional Christian fundamentalist view-that the New Testament is a priori true and so what ever in the 'Old Testament' that goes against it must be the wrong understanding, interpretation, or have the double application theory applied to it. You too are free to believe this.
a. I did not find where in your article what you are talking about, specifically, 22 vs. 27 NT books?
You did not see the part where I wrote,
"It is a dubious claim to equate the word Injeel with the entire New Testament canon. It becomes dubious on many accounts. The word Injeel or Gospel has never come to mean in any dictionary the entire New Testament."
"Any Christian making such a claim is being woefully dishonest. Second even if the word Injeel would equate New Testament which one would it be? The New Testament of 22 books or the New Testament of 27 books?"
continued
With the name of God...
continued...
b. "Decided" ? or "Discerned" ?
It is an a priori assumption to use the word 'discerned' over the word 'decided' because on what basis do we know that these people 'discerned' over 'decided'.
I can give you my basis for saying that they decided. I can say that for the reason that there are Christians who disputed what was in the Canon.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! Galatians 1:8
The Muratorian Canon has most of the NT listed in it and it dates from around 140 AD.
Well who decied to take out the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shephard of Hermas?
Before this, they were individual scrolls or pages. (pages, leaves, which is close to the literal Arabic meaning of "Suhuf"
Now Ken do you and other Christian apologist stop and think about this when you talk to us as Muslims.
You say that the Qur'an instructs Muslims to go and ask the people of the Gospel and so forth. Notice it says ask them but not to 'read it'. It is a huge assumption coming from the comfort of the 21century of having a Bible in every Christian home that the entirety of the New Testament or the entirety of any new testament books were in Arabia at that time.
The burden of proof is upon the Christian. However, it is possible that they had fragments but relied upon oral tradition for the most part.
Anyway, that is a debate between RCs and Protestants mainly. The RCs believe their church "decided" dogmatically which books were canon; whereas we believe the books were already "God-breathed" at the time of their writing, and they were all written by an apostle or close associate of an apostle
Yeah and I can see that the debate is in favor of the RCC, Orthrodox Christians and Eastern rite Christian groups. The tradition is before the text in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. No matter how you try and cut the pie.
The RCC didn't 'decide' They were guided if we are to believe Jesus in John 16:13
New Living Translation
"You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! (John 5:39)
This is why the strength of the argument is with the RCC on this one Ken.
You see in Islam the Qur'an is the last revelation to mankind.
In Christianity Jesus is the last revelation to mankind.
When Jesus said to 'preach the gospel to every creature' the burden of proof is upon the Protestants to show me any where he had given them holy writ or writtings. He didn't! It was passed on orally to the masses about the life of Jesus and what he came to do.
Yeah some help the Protestant reformation was! You go from an over all united body to back water Mississippi where any said town has 127 different 'sola scriptura' churches all pretty sure they are saved!
Even the way you people translated 2 Timothy 3:16 is misleading.
American Standard Version
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
Douay-Rheims Bible
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
If I say ALL the apples in the basket are good for eating that means everyone of them are good for eating. However, if I say ALL the apples that are good you can eat that means some of them are not.
continued...
With the name of God,
continued...
Ken you state,
The Greek of I Peter is a much higher quality grammatically than 2 Peter. 2 Peter 3:16 affirms all of Paul's letters, and 2 Tim. 3:16 calls all true Scripture God-breathed.
There are a few points about this. First when it says all TRUE scripture does this not beg the question. How do you KNOW which scripture is TRUE.
Next if Peter does confirm all of Paul's epistles it does not give us a total.
For example does Peter confirm the following
In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.”
While some would argue that Paul is referring to a previous section of 1 Corinthians (perhaps 5:1-8) rather than referring to a previous epistle, he then continued (in verse 10) to explain exactly what he meant by that statement, which is not what is said in 5:1-8. After explaining what the statement from the previous letter meant, Paul continued in 5:11 by showing the contrasting point, “But now I have written to you...”—explaining the difference between the statement from the previous epistle and the one from our 1 Corinthians.
So there are two ways to understand this.
That letter is inspired and thus not everything inspired by God is preserved.
That letter is not inspired and therefore everything written by Paul is not inspired by God.
Now Christians should not object to this because of the following text.
“Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
You see for Christians its not important that they have everything about Jesus. For Christians its important that they have WHAT THEY NEED concerning Jesus.
This is why Christians aren not embarassed that the God incarnate was walking around earth for 30 years not doing much of anything until he reached 'ABOUT' 30 years of age.
You state Ken,
"Dr. White answered that to my satisfaction, he admitted he got the reference wrong; and the Encyclopedia that he did use was a more scholarly one that is quite expensive; and more scholarly than a lower level encyclopedia that apparently was used by Mr. Jalal Abualrub."
O.K besides the fact that James comes off rather childish in screaming about how exspensive his sources are where as Abdulrub used sources that were free on the internet let's look at the most important thing you did not address.
In all honesty Ken I think it reveals something about you as well and your presuppositons about truth. I think for you following truth means 'as long as it leads me back to the view that James White can do no wrong'.
I will ask you since you have now read my post and watched James give his video response. What part in the debate does James provide his reference and quote? Where is his 'SOURCE'. Is it too much to ask?
I mean why debate or have interaction with someone who never reveals thier source?
I mean please help me to understand this Ken. I want to believe that Christians are not trying to decieve Muslims at every turn but gosh are you telling me James is essentially saying, "If you want to know my source for the quote spend a few thousand dollars and get the cd rom and MAYBE you will find it".
If this is what James is saying Ken I am really hurt by that.
Ken what ever you do PLEASE DO NOT E-MAIL James White and personally ask him for the quote and the source! He will set his AOMIN disciples upon you and show you no mercy!
Do you think that James has grieved the Holy Spirit according to Matthew Henry's concise commentary?
"All lying, and corrupt communications, that stir up evil desires and lusts, grieve the Spirit of God."
http://bible.cc/ephesians/4-30.htm
GV19 -
Peace to you, true peace, found only in Al Masih, who was an eternal sacrifice (qorban e abadi or zbh e abadi) for sin and rose from the dead.
قربان ابدی
یا
ذبح ابدی
Hebrews 10:10-17
Just a few comments:
1. Did you email Dr. White and get attacked?
2. Are you saying that his main sources for this are Shiite sources, which is what Canon Edward Sell's book points to? That is what the video seems to show.
OK, let's say that he used Canon Sell's book - he was an Anglican missionary and Orientalist, in India.
Was he an atheist or skeptic or anti-supernaturalist like a Bart Ehman or John Dominic Crossan or Robert Funk or other Jesus Seminar liberal scholars, like Robert Price?
If Rev. Canon Edward Sell was a believer in the God of the Bible (The Tri-unitas) God (three persons in one nature) - and if he believed the Bible was true and the miracles in them were true, etc.; then he is not a skeptic or anti-supernaturalist like Ibn Warraq ( I admit that he is and I have his book. Ali Dashti of Iran was also like this - he wrote a book called "23 Years" - he mysteriously disappeared around the time of the 1979 Revolution in Iran. I wonder what happened to him?
So, I understand your point - if we use complete atheists/agnostics/skeptics who approach all subjects with an anti-supernatural bias (that there is no God and no miracles and no revelation or books from God, etc.); then that would be inconsistent to complain at the Muslims who use the western atheists/skeptics/agnostics who attack Islam.
But, if we use other Christians who do beleive in God and supernatural revelation in the OT and NT, but they write things that show that the Qur'an or Islam is not true, that is not being inconsistent, if those writers do believe in God and supernatural revelation.
I did not find any information on line that Canon Edward Sell was an atheist/skeptic/unbeliever/agnostic.
By the way, I have seen Edward Sell's book years ago, long before I heard of Dr. White or started following his debates, etc. (But I did not read it then.) I understood that Uthman burned the other copies of the Qur'an from the Hadith, but I did not have the money to buy the book sets of the Hadith at that time. I am thankful it is all on line now.
I never wanted to do formal debates, because the ones I was familiar with - it just seemed Ahmad Deedat was very tricky and dishonest and the Muslim crowds would cheer and dominate - like the "herd mentality" comment that that Saudi Arabian man said on that Video that you (good for you; I respect you immensely for that comment you made at "answering Muslims" web site).
The only good debate I ever heard was Josh McDowell.
But I admit I never had time to study all the deep details of Ibn Masood and the Shiite's different traditions for their point of view.
I never had the money to invest in these kinds of expensive books; and when I started ministry to Muslims, there was no internet, etc.
I still do not understand your 22 NT canon vs. 27 book canon.
The Shepherd of Hermas was only considered canonical by a few for a very short time. I will have to refresh my memory by studying that issue again and the Epistle of Barnabas.
My point is that all the three major blocks of Christianity - RC, EO, and Protestants all agree on the 27 canon of the NT.
How is adding 2 more 22, that would make it 29? Please be more specific by what you mean by 22.
Thanks David Waltz for allowing us to continue this discussion!
To GV19:
I sincerely wish you true peace, which is found only in Jesus Al Masih (Isa Al Massih) عیسی المسیح
Who was the final sacrifice for sin. (Hebrews 10:10-17; Romans 5:1-11) and He rose from the dead, proving all He said and did in the NT was true. (I Corinthians 15:1-9)
He calls you to repentance and faith in Him. Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30-31
Isa Al Masih will judge you on judgment day; you are still in your sins; repent and trust Him. John 8:24; I Corinthians 15:17
It was Jesus the Messiah ( Isa Al Masih) who rejected the Judaism of the Pharisees/scribes/lawyers/chief priests/elders of Israel/Saducees, etc.
Matthew chapters 5, 6, 7; Luke 18:9-14; Matthew 23-24
You are following that Pharisee (and that includes the modern Rabinnic and atheist) Judaism in your critique of Isaiah 53.
Your recent critique of Isaiah 53 is flawed and wrong because you are using the modern Jewish interpretation of it pushed back on it, rather than the older Jewish interpretation, which is the New Testament Messianic interpretation; the true original Jewish interpretation. (All of the first Christians were Jews!) You are siding with the modern atheists/skeptics/agnostic Jews and Zionist Jews who are angry at their own God for allowing the 70 AD slaughter and angry at God for allowing the Holocaust of Nazi Germany and the whole history of mis-treatment and being “aliens” and “wanderers” on this earth. (for the most part; not every single individual; but there can be no denying that much of the root of their atheism and agnosticism is anger at God for allowing these trials and tribulations.)
Jesus Himself claimed to be the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 – Luke 22:37
See also John 12:38; Romans 10:16; Mark 10:45; John 1:10-11; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; Acts 8:32-33; I Peter 2:22, John 10:18; Luke 23:34; Mark 15:28. All of these are quotes and/or allusions to Isaiah 53. See also Isaiah 53:13-15 and Romans 15:20-21. These are the true Jewish interpretations.
So, when you say I have an a priori presupposition against Judaism, you are wrong, because true Judaism was followed by the first century Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and fulfillment of Isaiah 53, Genesis 12:3; Psalm 22, Psalm 16, Psalm 110, Jonah 1:17, etc.
True Judaism is the OT interpreted and understood just as those first Jews did – Matthew, Peter, Mark, John, James, Jude, Saul of Tarsus (Paul), and many others.
All the apostles were Jewish and all the writers of the NT were Jewish except one ( Luke, Gospel of Luke and Acts)
Continued;
to GV19:
By accepting the modern Judaism, (after 70 AD and 135 AD Rabbinic Judaism that was scattered all over the world and had to come up with an answer for why God allowed such a big slaughter and why God allowed the Romans to destroy the temple; and why they had to suffer all through history, you are actually rejecting a cardinal doctrine of Islam, that Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary (ibn Maryam) was the Al Masih. (The Messiah) This goes against Islam.
Since both Judaism in the OT and Christianity in the NT came before Islam (600 years !) and they are true and God’s word is true and the true God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2, in opposition to Qur’an 3:54) ; then Islam by nature is false (but it has some truths in it; like Jesus is Al Masih and born of the virgin Mary and is the Kalimat’allah (even though you interpret it wrong.).
Since the NT is the last revelation from the true God in book form – Jude 3; Hebrews 1:1-3; John 17:8; John 14, 15, 16, Rev. 22:18 – it is not parallel for you to argue that way –
I don’t need atheists scholars on Islam or the Qur’an, it is automatically false (not God-breathed or revelation) because the Bible is true and revelation stopped.
Jesus was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 (Son of Man ascending up on the clouds to the ancient of Days, sitting down and receiving a kingdom from all nations. See also Revelation 5:9; 7:9) and Daniel 9:24-27 – Jesus was killed (cut off – see Isaiah 53:8) and He rose from the dead – see Isaiah 52:13 – high, lifted up, and greatly exalted – another fulfillment of resurrection, ascension, and sitting down at right hand of throne of God in the OT) see also Psalm 110 and Matthew 22:41-46.
The temple was destroyed after the Messiah would be killed. – Daniel 9:24-27
Even the Qur’an has a seed form meaning of the substitution sacrifice of the innocent victim (sinless Messiah – Qur’an 19:19 – Jesus is sinless) for the guilty sinful humans - in Qur’an 37:107 – “We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice”. This agrees with the NT understanding of Isaiah 53.
Without His substitution sacrifice for sin, you are still in your sins, under the wrath of God – John 3:36; Romans 1:18; John 8:24; 8:31-34; Romans 5:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-3; Mark 7:2-23; Luke 18:9-14.
With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.
@ Ken
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3)
So don't worry the problem isn't me at all Ken. It seems that the real issue is if I am one of those randomly selected to be part of the elect or not.
So gentle reminder Ken it's not up to me to accept or reject Jesus as my saviour, I have no ability to save myself. God has to make this known to me through the Holy Spirit. I wish peace upon everyone.
I could do this and be theologically consistent.
However, you cannot wish me peace without knowing if you are offending the soverignty of God. How could you wish me peace when it may be the soverign will of God to see me in hell forever?
I mean every day that I live my life on this earth is a game of Russian Roulette according to Calvinist doctrines.
Ken you ask,
2. Are you saying that his main sources for this are Shiite sources, which is what Canon Edward Sell's book points to? That is what the video seems to show.
This is the point where I think I start thinking to myself gosh these people are insincere and have no shame. I mean how can you sleep at nights asking questions like the one above?
Are you saying that his main sources for this are Shiite sources,
I didn't say anything about his "MAIN SOURCES" I asked and I am still asking and if you are close to him maybe you could ask becuase inquiring minds want to know what was his SOURCE period.
Just to clarify what I mean by source. If James White is not really a sincere man and would like to continue on with his tomfoolery I can't help it.
But if you want to assist him in this I don't know what to say.
Ken I know that it may look like I am being a school yard bully to James White and I do not intend to come off that way. But in the world of academia and scholarship if someone witholds their sources and makes claims this is all bluster.
I would like to know in black and white the 'author, name of said book/periodical/magazine, publisher' and the exact quote that HE INTENDED to use in the debate with Shabir Ally.
That is what the video SEEMS to show.
Ken you are a rather creative individual because I have watched that video and I just don't see where it SEEMS to show that his source is?
Maybe you can give me the section of the video where you feel James White gives his source.
I almost didn't want to type this but you know what Ken maybe I am asking too much of James. Like I said any toastmaters club would be more than happy to have him. He's great at speaking infront of crowds. He has great voice inflection, and over all he's not a bad salesman.
However, I am a numbers kind of guy and when I look past the bluster I see James is trying to push off a 1984 Gremlin on me!
But than again I think to myself there is that matter about his internet degree and than it all comes together.
So let's not be to harsh on James. Ken I'm willing to let it go based upon his lack of any credible education. You know the kind where you have to do real research, and write real research papers and quote sources.
With the name of God,
continued...
Ken as far as your last two post. Don't worry about McElhaney and I when we are discussing Isaiah 53 he's doing pretty good with your help.
I'm also going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I personally believe that much of what yo uhave given is incoherent theological emotionalism.
I have no other choice. I don't know for how long you thought the Talmud spoke about Jesus. I'm glad you distanced yourself from that.
And seeing that you feel James White gave his source in his video response to us I'm just going to have to assume that all this other stuff you wrote was maybe not really well throught out.
Maybe all this you wrote about Daniel, and blood atonement and Islam being false. Maybe this is all just not very well thought out?
It is possible. I have been wrong about allot of things in my life Ken.
Grandverbalizer19:
What I meant was that your video (not the second one where Dr. White admits his mistake and that he looked down at the html text and didn't have time to focus and read it in the heat of the debate) seems to show that his source was Rev. Canon Edward Sell's book, The Recensions of the Koran.
the whole book is here, as you point out.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Canon_Sell/Recensions/p00.htm
The first video you show (made by two other Muslims) seems to show the wording, word for word, so that appears to be where he got his source from; but read the source/footnote wrong.
I was then just taking ya'll's word for it (that that is where Dr. White got his material) to then ask if the missionary Canon Edward Sell was an atheist/skeptic/agnostic like Bart Ehrman or Robert Price and John Dominic Crossan
or
Is he a believing Anglican missionary from the 1800s who was also studying the textual history of the Islamic sources. ( A believer in God (of the Bible) Orientalist) ??
So, if he is a believer - mo'men - مؤمن
in the God of the Bible and Christ and the miraculous and prophesy and that the OT and NT are inspired "God-breathed", then using Canon Sell is not inconsistent to use; because he would have to be an unbeliever/skeptic/agnostic/atheist like the Ehrman's and Jesus Seminar folks and Bultmann, etc. that many Muslim apologists make.
Since Edward Sell was not an unbeliever, then using him as a source is not inconsistent.
Grandverbalizer19 -
I went back and watched the first video again - the one made by "one more Muslim" and "Muslim by choice" and "Nazaam44" - this is one I am talking about - I see that Canon Sell was quoting Journal Asiatique, and the author of that article appears to be
Mirza Alexander Kazem Beg (probably a Shiite Muslim from Central Asia - Uzbekistan maybe - "Beg" is a common Turkic name of people from that area. Mirza is a common Iranian name as is Kazem. (maybe orginally Arabic) Alexander comes from "Iskander" - some Muslims have taken this name -left over from Alexander the Great when he conquered the Persian Empire.
Anyway, the footnote on page 15, which the Muslim video points us to, then points us to this footnote on page 9 of Canon Sell's book:
One of the Prophet's sayings is thus recorded: 'Whosoever wishes to recite the Qur'an correctly and with elegance let him follow the reading of ibn Mas'ud.' Ibn Mas'ud refused at first to give up his copy to the revision committee. The Khalifa ordered him to be beaten, from the effects of which he died.—Journal Asiatique, Decembre 1843, p. 385.
Mirza Alexander Kazem Beg, Observations sur le Chapitre inconnu du Coran, publie et traduit par M. Garcin de Tassy, Journal Asiatique, quatrieme serie, tome II, Imprimerie Royale, Paris,1843, pp. 373-446, [Remarks on the Unknown Chapter of the Qu'ran, published and translated by Mr. Garcin de Tassy]
Shi'ite literature confirms that 'Uthman had Ibn Mas'ud beaten causing his ribs to be broken. The Unknown Chapter of the Qur'an refers to the Sura an-Nurain, or 'Two Lights.' See page 19.
So, this is what I mean by the Shiite sources. It appears that Shiite sources do say that Ibn Masood was beaten for not giving up his Qur'an.
For others reading this, Grandverbalizer19's post where I am getting all of this from is here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-inconsistency-and.html
So, it does not appear to me to be inconsistent, since Rev. Canon Edward Sell was a believing Evangelical Protestant missionary from the 1800s. And he was using a source from a Muslim (Mirza A. Kazem Beg, and that cites Shiite sources, and they are believers in God and supernatural revelation. You can disagree as a Sunni with the Shiites, but that is not the point here. The point here is that it appears that Dr. White used sources that are believers in God, both Christians and Muslims; so he was not being inconsistent.
Grandverbalizer19:
Your other comments about God's Sovereignty and Evangelism - please listen to John McArthur's sermon here.
http://vimeo.com/10941231
"The Theology of Sleep" - Mark chapter 4, especially verses 26-28. "how, he does not know"
I Corinthians 3:6-7 - we are to sow seed, plant, water (preach and teach and disciple), but God causes the growth. We confess we don't have the power to change people's hearts, but God does have that power.
We are responsible to sow the seed, share the message, preach the gospel;
But only God can change the heart, or cause conversion. (Ezekiel 36:26; Acts 16:14; John 6:44; John 3:3-8)
http://vimeo.com/10941231
With the name of God,
Peace be unto you all.
What I meant was that your video (not the second one where Dr. White admits his mistake and that he looked down at the html text and didn't have time to focus and read it in the heat of the debate) seems to show that his source was Rev. Canon Edward Sell's book, The Recensions of the Koran.
Here is a picture of what html text looks like...
http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/images/support/WordWebSource.gif
By the way I work in the I.T line Ken, so how does someone 'read html text off the fly'? Maybe James White could give us a rough example of the kind of HTML text he was looking at.
Sorry to say this Ken but the guy your defending is telling a 'little white lie' no pun intended.
Ken if you can get James to commit to you what his source is that would really be great.
Because when I see you say,
SEEMS to show that his source was Rev. Canon Edward Sell's book
This does not look like something tht is very accurate to me Ken.
Ken you also say,
"since Rev. Canon Edward Sell was a believing Evangelical Protestant missionary from the 1800s. And he was using a source from a Muslim (Mirza A. Kazem Beg, and that cites Shiite sources, and they are believers in God and supernatural revelation."
So Ken am I right to say that you think that it SEEMS that James White was quoting from Edward Sell who was quoting from Mirza A. Kazem Beg who was quoting from Shiite "sources"?
Am I right to say this?
If I am right to say this and at the risk of sounding redundant may I ask what those "sources" were.
Again Ken you say,
Shi'ite literature confirms that 'Uthman had Ibn Mas'ud beaten causing his ribs to be broken. The Unknown Chapter of the Qur'an refers to the Sura an-Nurain, or 'Two Lights.' See page 19.
So, this is what I mean by the Shiite sources. It APPEARS that Shiite sources do say that Ibn Masood was beaten for not giving up his Qur'an.
This is all and well that we have a book with a page 19 and so forth, but do we know the SOURCE for this quote? I mean you know like when we do real research and scholarship and when we quote the quote of a quote of a quote of a quote we make sure what that original quote says and we can verify the source of that quote?
Not to mention the blunder James makes where he says 'died'.
Than James does not even wish to interact with the fact that the Shi'a and the Sunni have the Same Qur'an.
Any way inquiring minds would like to know. By the way I'll give John MacArthur's video a good look but you may also wish to have a look at my blog entry back in December where I gave a critique of the book "Saved without a Doubt" here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/12/christian-evangelist-john-macarthur-ask.html
Peace be unto you.
Salaam O Aleykum,
السلام و علیکوم
Grandverbalizer19 -
Again,
The first video (made by Muslims) seems to show that Dr. White used Sell's book, The Recenions of the Koran.
The bottom line is this -
Was Rev. Canon Edward Sell an unbeliever? (He believes in a God who is able to speak and reveal Himself through books/revelation)
Are the Shiites unbelievers? (they believe in a God who is able to speak and reveal Himself through books/revelation)
If they are not unbelievers/infidels/agnostics/atheists/skeptics like the Tubingen school, Bultmann, liberal scholarship, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan;
and they are not unbelievers in God and supernatural revelation;
then, it is not inconsistent for a westerner to use Edward Sell's book.
This is the aspect that I don’t see you admitting or interacting with.
Grandverbalizer19 -
Peace to you, I sincerely wish - which is only in Isa Al Masih (Jesus the Messiah) - John 14:27
It is a sincere desire and wish and invitation ( da'avat دعوت - that's the Iranian way to write and say the Arabic root word of "da'wa" دعوا) to the truth )حق با حقیقت.
You are wrestling with God's Sovereignty in Reformed theology and asking about issues concerning salvation and evangelism, etc. I understand your struggle.
It should not be too hard to understand, since you, as a Muslim believe in a similar way as to Allah Sovereignty, but since you reject original sin and that the will is enslaved to sin (John 8:34); and you reject the incarnation and you reject the atonement of Christ on the cross as a willing sacrifice for sins, you have no basis for forgiveness of sins, because no justice against sin is ever accomplished, it is all dependent on the human being to do good works from his own merit, and then, Ensh'allah, maybe "I will make it to the paradise". (except for dying in Jihad - but that is another subject;)
Let's try to focus on the following:
Is the same kind of idea that you say, “I pray that Allah will open his heart to accept Islam”, etc. We also believe in the Sovereignty of God (Tri –unitas –Father, Son, Spirit - three in ONE – Mark 12:29; Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; I Peter 1:1-2) – that God has to open someone’s heart in order for them to accept the truth of the gospel – Acts 16:14; John 6:44; Ezekiel 36:26 – God has to take a hard heart, enslaved to sin ( John 8:34) and take it out and give them a new soft, moldable heart that will be submissive and repentant and contrite and believing.
The God of the Bible invites all ( Matthew 11:28-30; Acts 17:30-31; 22:14a), but only some respond (Matthew 22:14 b; all the believing ones will be saved – John 3:16) and they are from all nations, tribes, tongues, ethnicities, cultures, peoples (Revelation 5:9) and it is a great number which no one count – Revelation 7:9 .
The great difference between God’s Sovereignty in Christianity vs. God’s Sovereignty in Islam is that in Christianity, God has a basis for choosing and forgiving our sins, - out of His love, based on His pure love and justice accomplished on the cross – that both justice (wrath, punishment) was accomplished against sin (Romans 3:25-26; I John 2:2; I John 4:10; and love for sinners was demonstrated. (Romans 5:8). Because God’s holiness and justice and wrath against sin was poured out on Christ, who was a willing, voluntary sacrifice ( John 10:18, Philippians 2:5-8), there is a basis for His forgiveness. In Islam, you have no basis for forgiveness of sins, because the holiness and justice of God is not satisfied. All you have is a capricious God who just chooses to wink at sin and say “I forgive you” if He wants to forgive. It is all based on the capricious will of Allah. This is why there is so much fatalism in Islam, and why it is so strong in Islamic cultures, there is no basis for forgiveness, (because there is a inherent denial of substitutionary sacrifice and the cross) because it is based on the capricious will of Allah, yet you must work and do all the rituals and good works, but you can never be sure of Allah’s forgiveness, because His justice was not satisfied, because you have rejected the teaching of the cross, which was a real historical event. The beauty of Christianity is that both justice and love were completely accomplished at the cross.
Those that reject Jesus as Al Masih, the eternal Spiritual Son of God, the Kalimat’allah from all eternity, who became flesh (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) and His work of redemption on the cross, will have to be under the wrath and just anger of God for all eternity, in hell, where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:48; Matthew 5:21-30; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 20:10-15; Luke 13:1-5; Matthew chapter 25)
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
Ken you state,
and they are not unbelievers in God and supernatural revelation;
then, it is not inconsistent for a westerner to use Edward Sell's book.
This is the aspect that I don’t see you admitting or interacting with.
"IF" and I do mean If as in conditional this is what is happening than I am happy to concede the point to you Ken.
I am also not saying that James uses only Ibn Warraq and orientalist who employ the same tubingen princples against the Qur'an.
I am fairly confident that James uses the research of luminaries from Zwelmer institute.
However when he gets information from Sam Shamoun (answering-islam) this does not inspire confidence in his research abilities.
Shabir Ally brought up the point that he used scholars James disagreed with and than kindly asked James to give him a list of reference works on Christianity.
Shabir did this with the understanding that these works would be thought to be authoratative on Christianity. Than when Shabir starts quoting people like N.T Wright James still gets a bit antsy.
Again I think it was interesting you might call it divine providence that in his first ever reference on Islam in a debate with Muslims he made a huge blunder.
However, before we can clear the name of Mr. "unable to read html on the fly" We would still need to know his source before we could conclude in this case he was not being inconsistent in this regards.
The major point the brothers in the first video were pointing out is that he jumped on his debate opponent for quoting the encyclopeida brittanica.
But low and behold James too is using the encyclopedia of Islam.
The difference "well mine cost more". Well cry me a river. At least the encyclopedia brittanica is readily available where as the SOURCES James uses is STILL NOT made known to us.
However, that being said when and if James uses sources that are Sunni, Shi'a or Christian that is being consistent no problems.
With the name of God, walakum salaam wr wb @ Ken.
Ken I do think honestly you are sincere and you know what I respect you for going into the mission field according to the pronouncements of Matthew 28:19-20 the great commission.
Atleast you believe in the soverignty of God and in his ability to guide.
But frankly Ken the Christian dominionist scare the day lights out of me just as much as Islamic extremist should scare the day lights out of you.
I am also not impressed when Muslims keep showing the debate between Deedat and Swaggart as if it some how proves that Islam is superior to Christianity. I mean Swaggart was a tele-evangelist he's not a scholar.
Deedat (may Allah have mercy upon him) also employed methods that I think were dubious in nature. And Allah-willing I plan to expose that in my web site as well.
During the recent debate between Mary Jo Sharp, and Dr. Tabbasum when Nazam44 posted a video that had all kinds of footage that was not appropriate (peppering the debate) before it happened I raised my concern to them and Al hamdulillah they asked him to take it down.
I sent massive e-mails to Muslims asking them to boycott Malaysia when people were burning Churches recently over the 'Allah can't be used by Christians issue'.
I simply told them it's very inconsistent to boycott Denmark over the cartoon of the Prophet and than sit back and claim that the issue in Malaysia is subject to local police investigation. That's crap and they know it.
the problem I have with Calvinism is it's strange hybrids and mind set that it inculcates into people.
continued...
With the name of God
continued from above.
I'll give you an example. I volunteer as a tour guide on the weekends in some of the Mosque in Singapore.
I was introduced to a man from North Carolina (Presbyterian five point calvinist all the way....)
Low and behold the story starts to unfold.. He has met a local Muslim lady presumably online and has come here to persue interest.
This guy is very conservative. I mean if I say the wrong things about Glen Beck or Limbaugh i'm asking for a fight. But he's very passionate,sincere and you can see in his eyes this man does love God no doubt.
But now he's thinking about converting to Islam. Needless to say the girl's father is not too happy with me. I informed the gentleman that he doesn't need to change his name should he convert to Islam and a whole host of advice that cultural Muslims don't like to hear.
For example I told him they could marry in a secular courts. I also told him I would never change my religion for a woman (not Islam, Christianity, Hinduism) you name it.
However, he and and African American brother of (Southern Baptist) background now a Muslim had a really good talk at the Darul Arqam.
I told him this here is the Qur'an these are the words of Allah if this speaks to you than I would urge you to embrace Islam. If it does not speak to you than my work is done because with Allah is the final argument.
The thing I found curious when we were talking theology was pre-destination, the soverignty of God and his idea of being 'dead in Christ before the foundation of the world'.
Calvinist theology has instilled in him a belief that it's o.k to convert to Islam because no matter what he does he's one of the saints!
That maybe before the foundation of the world this (Islam) is what God has willed for him. Interesting huh?
You know what I told him the same thing I tell all those Sweedes, Danes and Germans who come to the Mosque and are impressed with Islam.
"Go back and give the Church a 2nd chance".
Does this sound like someone seething with contempt for Christ and Christianity? I would prefer someone to remain a Christian and meet Allah as such, and change the world around them rather than embrace Islam and be faced with the ugly behavior of many Muslims and than leave Islam and be in a very difficult spiritual condition.
I don't like to see anyone spiritually destroyed.
If you read my bio my theological position is Maturdi. We do not believe that just because a person is not a Muslim that they go to hell. However, we do believe that those who leave Islam are cursed and in a very wretched spiritual condition.
The Maturdi position is it's better for ignorant of truth on the day of judgement than to know the truth and not embrace it. That is what a Kafir is. "One who convers the truth with falsehood"
This is why you take the Shahadah with two witnesses because you now join a community in which certain responsbilities are now binding upon you (like paying zakaat).
But back to the gentleman. The interesting thing about this guy Ken is that I can see he is a true and knowledgeable Christian. By the way the girl he's interested in is a little liberal even for his taste. Thank God.
However, when he does become a Muslim (insh'Allah) everyone around him will say he betrayed Christ and he never really believed. It's this kind of arrogance and theology that really makes one wonder.
continued...
With the name of God,
continued from above...
This is why I gave you the link to John McAruthur and he seems to be someone respected among Calvinist. So let me ask you Ken how did you feel about his book 'Saved without a doubt'. Seems to me when I read the reviews people are not very convinced.
Like I said his definition can run the gamut of Christianity and it's myriad sects and denominations.
Another word for capracious is arbitrary.
You said that in Islam God is capracious but in Christianity the basis for God to forgive is Love.
arbitrary - based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice; "an arbitrary decision"; "the arbitrary rule of a dictator"; "an arbitrary penalty";
So than what is meant by "The Elect"? O.K so what if God's basis is Love for people who are elect.
Islam says the same thing. Obviously if Allah has giving you the direction and guidance he has not left you in darkness.
Ken I'm not going to pretend that these theological difficulties are not in Islam they are. Shi'a and Sunni go back and forth on this issue in much the same way Arminian and Calvinist do.
The Jabariyyah are extreme fatalist "hyper calvinism" if you will.
You said God chooses people out of his Love. Doesn't this beg the question. Who gets God's love and why? What makes these people get elected over others? Please explain how this is not capracious?
If this is not a dynamic relationship than the Arminians definitely have your number.
To me Christian theology at the surface sounds like it's a complete package from Genesis 3 to the ressurection.
In Islam there are there who are lifted from the Pen (mentally unstable, a person dreaming until they wake and a baby until the age of maturity).
In Christianity "All have sinned"
In Islam the first sin was commited by a non human Iblis.
In Christianity too it was Lucifer but let's not highlight this to the masses because it won't fit into our inherited sin agenda.
You have the story of cain and abel we are left to wonder why God accepted the sacrifice of one over the other.
The Qur'an reveals why in Surah 5:27 Because Abel was righteous it has nothing to do with blood. So the Qur'an gets the story straight.
Ken you say,
In Islam, you have no basis for forgiveness of sins, because the holiness and justice of God is not satisfied. All you have is a capricious God who just chooses to wink at sin and say “I forgive you” if He wants to forgive.
Let me ask you what books on Islamic theology have you read from Muslims? What have you read from Muslims that gives you this awful impression that 'God winks at sin'?
The thing you don't see is that Islam teaches that Allah's mercy OUTWEIGHS his wrath. That Allah loves us more than a mother loves her child.
But for Christians it's 'dangerous to talk about God's love' just go ask James.
You also have no idea about forgiveness of sins in Islam this is suprising for someone who has been in the mission field and working with Muslims.
Narrated By Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “If Allah wants to do good to somebody, He afflicts him with trials.” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 70, #548)
continued...
With the name of God,
continued from above...
God has a means of forgiving sins but it is not a flat criteria or a set standard that applies to everyone. Why?
On no soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear – [Quran 2:286]
Not even the souls are equal in what they can take Ken. This is a strong argument against suicide. Some people have their parents taken from them when they are little. Some people have their limbs taken.
Some people go through this or that but Allah will never place upon you something that you cannot take. Some souls can endure more than others.
In Islam what is important is that God is just because we are not all equal and that is why equal standards are not applied.
Man and Women are not equal, the tall and the short, people's capacity to use intellect and so forth.
Narrated By Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, “No calamity befalls a Muslim but that Allah expiates some of his sins because of it, even though it were the prick he receives from a thorn.” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 70, #544)
I remember a story once a brother from Bangladesh was recounting how he was climbing a tree trying to grab a mango when he fell out of the tree and injured his arm. He started crying.
The people asked him are you o.k why are you crying are you hurt? He replied I am not crying because I am hurt I am crying because Allah remembered me.
And we have forgotten the Will of God in this world and it may not be beautiful, it may not be kind. Yes it is love but as the sufis know that love has two sides, the sufis say you cannot have a rose without a thorn.
Though I understand this I also understand there are flowers that present no thorns. I myself am a bluebell fan.
We can go back and forth using proof text, logic and rational arguments. However, there is a point with Allah where the exegesis, tafsirs, logic and arguments do not go.
This is to experience the divine.
Grandverbalizer19-
Peace to you!
Very interesting about Al Maturidi - he was born in Maturid, near Samarqand - I have been there. Great place, people were very hospitable and they loved my Farsi - they said they had never met a westerner who had learned their language - the Russian Soviets never bothered to learn Tajik/Farsi/Persian.
Thanks for your kind thoughts - you make some excellent points in the last few com boxes.
Muhammad Abu Mansur al-Maturidi(853 A.D. - 333 AH / 944 A.D.) (Persian: محمد بن محمد بن محمود أبو منصور ماتریدی سمرقندی حنفی) was a Persian Muslim theologian, and a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence and Qur'anic exegesis. Al Maturidi is one of the pioneers of Islamic Jurisprudence scholars and his two works are considered to be authoritative on the subject.
"IF" and I do mean If as in conditional this is what is happening than I am happy to concede the point to you Ken.
Very good.
I am also not saying that James uses only Ibn Warraq and orientalist who employ the same tubingen princples against the Qur'an.
good
I am fairly confident that James uses the research of luminaries from Zwelmer institute.
That’s Zwemer, named after the great missionary Samuel Zwemer. Maybe, that is possible. I think they are credible.
Than when Shabir starts quoting people like N.T Wright James still gets a bit antsy.
N. T. Wright is actually good against the “Jesus Seminar” skeptics/atheists of Crossan, Price, and Ehrman types. Reformed theologians disagree with N.T. Wright on his “New Perspective on Paul” (on what Paul’s writings mean on the doctrine of justification); but Wright believers the Bible is inspired and does not follow the form or redaction criticism of the “Jesus Seminar” scholars.
However, that being said when and if James uses sources that are Sunni, Shi'a or Christian that is being consistent no problems.
Can you please clarify that statement? I did not fully understand it.
Do you know what the Mirza A. Kazem Beg article and Edward Sell were getting at by “Shiite sources” ? Apparently the The Shiites believe in some lost surahs? Where they say Muhammad gave his mantle to Ali, so that Ali should have been the first Khalif, right?
Ken I do think honestly you are sincere and you know what I respect you for going into the mission field according to the pronouncements of Matthew 28:19-20 the great commission.
I appreciate your kind words here. Thank you; you are a gentleman.
Atleast you believe in the soverignty of God and in his ability to guide.
But frankly Ken the Christian dominionist scare the day lights out of me just as much as Islamic extremist should scare the day lights out of you.
Who are these folks? There are many different sects and emphases among different groups of these kinds of doctrines.
I am also not impressed when Muslims keep showing the debate between Deedat and Swaggart as if it some how proves that Islam is superior to Christianity. I mean Swaggart was a tele-evangelist he's not a scholar.
very good.
Deedat (may Allah have mercy upon him) also employed methods that I think were dubious in nature. And Allah-willing I plan to expose that in my web site as well.
Agreed. He was very tricky; and did not really understand Christianity at all.
During the recent debate between Mary Jo Sharp, and Dr. Tabbasum when Nazam44 posted a video that had all kinds of footage that was not appropriate (peppering the debate) before it happened I raised my concern to them and Al hamdulillah they asked him to take it down.
Very good!
I sent massive e-mails to Muslims asking them to boycott Malaysia when people were burning Churches recently over the 'Allah can't be used by Christians issue'.
Yes; good; bravo. As we say in Farsi, “Zende bad!” زنده باد! Meaning “long life to you!”
But now he's thinking about converting to Islam.
Wow; that is strange. It just goes to show you that one can have strong doctrinal intellectual beliefs, but not much heart knowledge. Revelation 2:1-7; I Cor. 13:1-3; I Cor. 8:1
. . . .
Calvinist theology has instilled in him a belief that it's o.k to convert to Islam because no matter what he does he's one of the saints!
He is missing a floor in his brain. یک تختش کم داره
Does this sound like someone seething with contempt for Christ and Christianity? I would prefer someone to remain a Christian and meet Allah as such, and change the world around them rather than embrace Islam and be faced with the ugly behavior of many Muslims and than leave Islam and be in a very difficult spiritual condition.
Interesting. Do you think a lot of Muslims have ugly behavior? Why? What causes this?
But back to the gentleman. The interesting thing about this guy Ken is that I can see he is a true and knowledgeable Christian.
He is desperate to find a wife, sounds like he cannot win a wife in his own culture - something is wrong with this guy. Head knowledge maybe; but something is wrong in his heart and soul and will.
However, when he does become a Muslim (insh'Allah) everyone around him will say he betrayed Christ and he never really believed.
Maybe. It is possible for a true believer to “backslide” for a season. But he really sounds unstable to me; but that is not much information to go by. You cannot expect to know someone very deeply by talking to them one time on a tourist guide thing.
It's this kind of arrogance and theology that really makes one wonder.
How is that theology arrogant? What do you think Jesus means in Matthew 7:15-23? Esp. verse 23 – “I never knew you” – to people who had done miracles and good deeds in Jesus’ name. That theology is based on clear texts. Also I John 2:19
You said that in Islam God is capracious but in Christianity the basis for God to forgive is Love.
The basis is more than just “Love” – it is His love demonstrated by entering into humanity, time, and space and becoming flesh (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) and being willing to be persecuted and spat upon and rejected and mocked and crucified. “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
So than what is meant by "The Elect"? O.K so what if God's basis is Love for people who are elect.
The demonstration of His Love and election is His incarnation and atonement (cross) that satisfied justice and actually saves sinners from all nations.
Islam says the same thing. Obviously if Allah has giving you the direction and guidance he has not left you in darkness.
Ken I'm not going to pretend that these theological difficulties are not in Islam they are. Shi'a and Sunni go back and forth on this issue in much the same way Arminian and Calvinist do.
yes; I hear you.
The Jabariyyah are extreme fatalist "hyper calvinism" if you will.
Ok, doesn’t that show something about the name “Al Jabar” ال جبار? and concept of “Jabr” جبر? Qur’an 59:23
You said God chooses people out of his Love. Doesn't this beg the question. Who gets God's love and why? What makes these people get elected over others? Please explain how this is not capracious?
Nothing within the man or woman can merit salvation or love. God chooses because of His love, yes; but if He demonstrated raw justice, He would sent all of us to hell; as it is, He has chosen to save some from all nations out of His mercy. He allows evil and evil people in order to demonstrated His love on vessels of mercy, to get glory. Romans 9:14-24
Let me ask you what books on Islamic theology have you read from Muslims?
Not enough, I admit; just bits and pieces in seminary in other Christian books, and quotes from Al Ghazzali, Fazler Rahman, Saeed Qutb ( to understand where he was coming from); some of the Sufis – Iranians – Hafez, Saadi, Rumi. (great stuff, great quotes about Jesus of the NT) Oh yeah, some of Ibn Kathir and some of the other classical ones on line, both Sunni and Shiite. O yeah, and Maudoodi, the Pakistani founder of Jama’at e Islami. (I have several of his booklets on Understanding Islam, the compilation of the Qur”an and understanding Jihad. His full Tafsir on the Qur’an seems to be here http://www.englishtafsir.com/
What have you read from Muslims that gives you this awful impression that 'God winks at sin'?
A practical observation that many of my Muslim friends have said in the last 26 years – except for big sins ( like adultery and shirk and murder and stealing) – other sins like lust, (Allah create me a man; He knows I am weak and He created me this way; besides, it is the sexy American college girls fault!) - taking a foreign girlfriend during college in the west is no big deal as the women are at fault with their lewd dress and showing too much flesh and smiling and flirting, lying to Kufar is ok; jealousy, pride, anger, envy, hatred, unforgiveness, evil thoughts – theses are not really sins; the important thing is to do the outward behavior right and ritual – wuzu and salat and zakat and haj, ramadan, beard, clothes, etc.
The thing you don't see is that Islam teaches that Allah's mercy OUTWEIGHS his wrath. That Allah loves us more than a mother loves her child.
The love of Allah does not seem to be an emphasis in the Qur’an. It says “Allah does not love the unbelievers” But the Bible says, “God loves sinners” Romans 5:8; Ephesians 2:1-10
Grandverbalizer19 -
What is a good Islamic theology book that you would recommend?
With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.
However, that being said when and if James uses sources that are Sunni, Shi'a or Christian that is being consistent no problems.
Can you please clarify that statement? I did not fully understand it.
What I mean that if he (James) uses those sources by believers than that is fine and well that's all.
Do you know what the Mirza A. Kazem Beg article and Edward Sell were getting at by “Shiite sources” ? Apparently the The Shiites believe in some lost surahs? Where they say Muhammad gave his mantle to Ali, so that Ali should have been the first Khalif, right?
My response to this is just to reiterate what I have been saying all along Ken. I have no way to deny or affirm this unless I know the sources.
I do know this. I know that Samuel Green (a contributor to answering-muslims and answering-islam) had a debate on the 'Historical Preservation of the Qur'an' with a Jewish convert to Islam Abdullah Kunde that you can see here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/debatethe-historical-preservation-of.html
The issue came up and Abdullah questioned Green about the "two extra surahs" and Green didn't seem to be prepared to present anything. Maybe you will come to a different conclusion.
Christian Dominionist-Who are these folks?
Look up Christian Dominionism and watch the movie Jesus Camp. These people want to deny religious freedom to everyone except themselves!
Interesting. Do you think a lot of Muslims have ugly behavior? Why? What causes this?
I gave an interview to some brothers from Saudia Arabia recently and I told them, "If I had to follow any religion just on the basis of the etiquette alone I would be a Christian without doubt"
Needless to say they will edit that out in their video presentation when it goes on television over there. This is also saying allot if you read my 'About Me' that I wasn't too thrilled with allot of Christian behavior either.
continued...
With the name of God,
continued...
How is that theology arrogant?
Well I think the theology is arrogant because it can lead to complacency. I have also not seen any very good arguments from Calvinist that shows me they are 100% guaranteed salvation.
They will only quote the same proof text that the myriad of other Christians quote to me.
Which is going back to your earlier question. Having excellent manners is very important and it is a fruit of your faith.
http://adabinislam.blogspot.com/ < I highly encourage this blog to you, David, Daughterofwisdom or anyone.
Even recently I was about to enter a lift with another brother and a young girl went in first and he stopped me from entering and signaled for her to go up.
I said why didn't we go up. He replied that gentlemen do not accompany a young lady when she is alone.
Just using the lift (elevator) as an example again there was a sheikh visiting with us and we all went to the lift down stairs we could all fit but one brother. He took the stairs. While in the lift the Sheikh said 'istaghfirullah (Allah forgive me) and looked at us and said one of us should have accompained him it is not right to let our brother walk alone.
These people really encourage me.
But than you have those people who don't return your salams, think that Jews and Christians are dogs and pigs and shouldnt be allowed to visit the Mosque. They think their you know what doesn't stink. They are outwardly religious and very strict and observant but inwardly these people have such putrid souls and unmatched arrogance.
I despised them and used to love getting on their nerves until one of my teachers rebuked me that I should be thankful that Allah has given me knowledge; and I should seek refuge in Allah from being among those who are blind with the image they see in the mirror.
They even have the nerve to ask questions like 'Do you think the Prophet's parents are in heaven or hell'.
Why did Umar leave the pyramids in Egypt if I was Umar I would have destroyed them; and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre too!
In 638, the Christians were forced to surrender Jerusalem to Muslim control under caliph Omar. In a remarkable gesture for the time, Omar refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, saying, "If I had prayed in the church it would have been lost to you, for the Believers [Muslims] would have taken it saying: Omar prayed here." This act of generosity would have unfortunate consequences, however.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre continued to function as a Christian church under the protection of Omar and the early Muslim rulers, but this changed on October 18, 1009, when the "mad" Fatimid caliph Hakim brutally and systematically destroyed the great church.
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-church-of-holy-sepulchre
I am with Umar the commander of the faithful. The one's I speak about they are with Hakim!
continued...
With the name of God.
continued from above...
Ken you said,
Ok, doesn’t that show something about the name “Al Jabar” ال جبار? and concept of “Jabr” جبر? Qur’an 59:23
That's a good point! I'll admit personally when I have studied with sheikhs and I have asked how our doctrine as Sunni Muslims differ from the Jabariyyah and maybe I didn't listen carefully but the distinction didn't seem to stand apart in my humble understanding.
Al-Jabbar (The Compeller) He Who repairss all broken things, who completes that which is incomplete, and Who has the ability, with force, to make people do whatever He wants.
Ken you said,
Nothing within the man or woman can merit salvation or love. God chooses because of His love, yes; but if He demonstrated raw justice, He would sent all of us to hell; as it is, He has chosen to save some from all nations out of His mercy. He allows evil and evil people in order to demonstrated His love on vessels of mercy, to get glory. Romans 9:14-24
But I still do not feel that my question is answered. How are these 'he has chosen to save from all nations out of his mercy' become chosen? If I do not know how the selection process works is it fair for me to call the 'Christian' God capracious?
Al Ghazzali, Fazler Rahman, Saeed Qutb some of the Sufis – Iranians – Hafez, Saadi, Rumi. Ibn Kathir Maudoodi, the Pakistani founder of Jama’at e Islami.
Saeed Qutb, and Maudoodi are both from the reformist movements whom personally I loath. Jamal Ad Al Afghani, Rashid Rida, Muhammed Abduh and all those who joined with the freemasons in Europe with the expressed purpose of subverting Islam.
Especially handing the Muslim economy over to the usury riba system! Today running around with their clever ploy of 'Islamic banking' yeah right.
These people do nothing but inspire nationalist movements on the pretext of Islam, incite hatred and are responsible for the terrorism today. They are the same ones who get on television dressed up like Westerners and smile to your face saying 'we come in peace'.
continued..
With the name of God,
continued from above.
Syed Qutb and Maudoodi are both foot notes who contributed next to nothing in any field.
Ibn Kathir (May Allah have mercy upon him) is more a Qur'an exegete than a scholar on theology. He was a Shaf'i in fiqh.
As far as his theological positions they could also be dubious since he was a student of Ibn Tamiyyah who had Mujasimmah tendencies (making Allah like the creation).
Fazler Rahman is in the same group with Qutb and Maududi.
I cannot comment on Hafez or Saadi.
and Rumi is the soul of Islam :)
If by Al Ghazzali you mean Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī than voila my friend now your talking a great theologian!
Good books on Islamic theology.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/498503.
On_the_Boundaries_of_Theological_Tolerance_in_Islam_Abu_Hamid_al_Ghazali_s_Faysal_al_Tafriqa
Imam Abu Hanifa's Al-Fiqh al-Akbar Explained < A treasure! http://www.whitethreadpress.com/publications/Fiqhakbar.htm
Islamic Beliefs & Doctrine According to Ahl al-Sunna: A Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations
http://www.isn1.net/A-Repudiation-of-Salafi-Innovations-p/bk-islamicbeliefsanddoctrineac.htm
Web sites that represent the views of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (The people who follow the Prophet's Sunnah and the Consensus) i.e Sunni Muslims.
www.zaytuna.org <---(I studied here)
and...
http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com
This information should be good for all who are interested and than we are off to the races!
One last thing, Ken you said,
The love of Allah does not seem to be an emphasis in the Qur’an. It says “Allah does not love the unbelievers” But the Bible says, “God loves sinners” Romans 5:8; Ephesians 2:1-10
Very good observation. Notice though it says unbelievers those who do not believe. So these people have been given a chance to believe.
In Islam one of the 99 names of Allah is Al Wadud (The Loving) and this indicates that Allah is the source of love.
However, if you say that God loves sinners what do you mean by that? Because love is dynamic and would require some action. Surely this statement 'God loves sinners' has to be quantified.
Because some of those sinners have been called to repentance and regeneration through the Holy Spirit and some have not.
Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
In Islam one of the 99 names of Allah is Al Wadud (The Loving) and this indicates that Allah is the source of love.
What is the difference between the Arabic concepts of "wadud" ودود and "hob" حب/"mohabat" محبت /محبه ?
The Qur'an never says, "Allah is mohabat/hob/mohaba. (Love, Lovingkindness, agape, khesed)
Yet that (hob/mohaba/mohabat) is the concept closest to agape in Greek and KHesed in Hebrew.
If the Sufis like Rumi are the soul of Islam, then why does the Qur'an never use "mohaba/hob/mohabat" for God, nor "eshq"/asheq عشق/عاشق(passion, love, romantic love/ asheq = "lover") for God, yet, those are main concepts that the Sufis like Rumi were using for the love of God, and they rejected the dry ritualistic/law (sharia) form of Islam (which seems to be the real "soul" of Islam - external rituals and obedience to the laws of society - don't do fitnah فتنه(rebellion, confusion, commotion, street protests) and don't rebel against authorities and don't rebel against your parents. Do the prayers five times a day and fast during Ramadan and make sure you do the washings (wudzu)right and say the right formulas and then maybe, Inshallah, Allah will accept you by your good deeds out-weighing your bad deeds.
That seems to be "soul" of Islam. Rumi and other Sufis are considered "Bedaat" بدعت/بدعه(heresy, innovations) by most Sunni Muslims, right?
GV19 wrote:
Syed Qutb and Maudoodi are both foot notes who contributed next to nothing in any field.
I am not trying to mean, but this is what the rest of the world wants to know - why do their philosophies and actions dominate so many governments/societies/and Islamic terror movements?
"They are a footnote" ??!! - Except all the Jihadist movements of the last 50 years - Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaedah, Jamaat Al Islami, etc. - Also the Salafis and Wahabis seem similar in their interpretation to both Sayeed Qutb and Maudoodi on the period of the "Rashideen" (Muhammad and the rightly guided Khalifs and their students) All of these groups have the same basic interpretations - to get back to Muhammad and Omar and Uthman's Islam and spread Islam like they did in Egypt/N. Africa/Spain/Byzantine Empire/Persia, etc. - by Jihad - aggressive holy war. Qatl -قتل Qatal, قتال - mind you, this is the Iranian way of writing these words, but the basic Arabic word is قتل, which is the word used for pre-mediated murder in the Ten Commandments - "do not murder" (Kill and be killed - the glories of Jihad etc. (Surah 9:5 and 9:29)
which even if these Jihadi/Salafi/Wahabi/Khomeini Regime for Shiites is only 10 % of the Muslim world, that is 10% of over one billion people, which is over 100 million people, which is a lot of influence, much more than a footnote of influence.
Every day all over the world, the 6'o'clock news (now 24 hour news with CNN and Fox and internet and Al Jazera, etc.) is fairly well taken up with this "footnote".
I am not trying to be mean, but this is the big question - it seems to dominate the Muslim world in general, as you pointed out with some of your examples. (and the "herd mentality" video that was posted on the answering Muslims site.)
GV19:
You said a lot of good things recently; I don't have time to comment on any more today; but I will try to later another day.
Thanks for all the recommendations of books and web-sites for study of a better form of Islam.
Sincerely wishing you true peace, which can only come through Isa Al Masih عیسی المسیح , who died for sinners, satisfying the just wrath of God against sin; pouring out His love for us. John 14:27; Romans 3:25-26; Romans 5:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-10; I John 2:2; Revelation 5:9; 7:9
One more thing for today:
Thank you very much for your honesty on this issue:
Al-Jabbar (The Compeller) He Who repairss all broken things, who completes that which is incomplete, and Who has the ability, with force, to make people do whatever He wants.
Al-Jabr الجبر is also where we get "Algebra" from - to plug in the right numbers in mathematical formulas - hence - "completes that which is incomplete" - is this why doctrinally Allah is not a "person" شخص and does not have "personality" شخصیت , but is only an impersonal force - like a math formula - plug in obedience and you get the same result - blessings; plug in disobedience and you get punishment - same always like a math formula.
Is this a fair understanding of how that works out in every day life in the Muslim world?
The answer is that the true God is love and a person, in personal relationship within Himself, 3 in one. 3 persons in one nature. That is the only God who can fill the emptiness in our hearts that longs for relationship; only the God of the Bible teaches that Love, because only He is pure Love and pure spiritual relationship from all eternity.
GV19 wrote: "We can go back and forth using proof text, logic and rational arguments. However, there is a point with Allah where the exegesis, tafsirs, logic and arguments do not go.
This is to experience the divine. "
---------------------------------
I love this! No amount of arguments ever wins one over. Only God can change the heart. We present our cases before men, but only God can change hearts.
Well said GrandVerb! After a while, all arguments fall flat and we are left with our faith and beliefs. Facts can take us only so far, but faith is the key to true understanding and deep belief in the Truth. Truly that is divine.
Peace.
I have a question about that guy converting to Islam. If God is God, why do people feel the need to convert from one religion to the next? It sounds to me that people are looking for the right creed to follow instead of looking for God. I see nowhere in the Bible where God asked anyone to convert from one religion to another. I only see where God asked people to convert from sin to righteousness. A good example of this is king Nebuchadnezzar. He never became a Jew but God converted his heart (Daniel 4:34-36). Also, when Jesus walked this earth He never any of the Jews to convert to Christianity. He just asked them to accept Truth. Paul asked the pagans to put away their false gods and worship the true God. Paul said the knowledge of God is known to every man, regardless of religion, and thus we are without excuse.
Romans 1:18-20:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
JMHO.
Prophecy Servant of God
` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
word Atmak not necessarily means ‘whom I uphold’ but is infact a name
the writing of Atmak is אתמך
the writing of Ahmad is אחמד
Isaiah 42:1
God says
“Behold, 'My Servant' (pronounced as Abd-ee), ‘whom I uphold’ (pronounced as Atmak);
God mentioning about the coming of His servant
Behold My Servant Ahmad (Isaiah 42:1) - so who is this Ahmad as in God'servant?
He is none other than
Abd-Allah Ahmad (Servant of God, Ahmad) - Prophet Muhammad s.a.w
Post a Comment