Friday, February 11, 2011
An Enlightened Lecture - Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran
Alternate viewing option (click on link below):
http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html
Enjoy !!!
Grace and peace,
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
Mr. Waltz,
If I am remember correctly, I have only commented once before on your blog, though I frequently monitor your posts. Your last few threads on the monarchy of God were not only on an academic level that I rarely encounter on most blogs, but also very informative. Your interest in Islam intrigues me, and I look forward to your future contributions into this specific arena.
Akakius
The key-word is tradition: you can't remove a text from its con-text.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Absolutely beautiful! Mash'Allah!
'The smallest sign that a person has faith (emaan-re-affirmation) is that a person moves an obstacle on the path of a traveler, and the highest sign of faith is to say la ilaha il law lah' -Fath Al Bari The 77 Branches of Faith.
This Jewish woman has enough goodness in her heart to bring 70,000 Jews into paradise with her! Mash'Allah.
If I was Khilafa she would always be welcomed in all the lands of Islam, without the least difficulty. Most welcome.
Very well done!
It is certainly commendable that she as an agnostic (probably this is one form of unbelief in Islam; more below) Jewish woman, took so much time to understand Islam and read the Qur'an slowly and sought to understand.
There are many positive things about her efforts to be nice and understanding to the Muslims and Islam.
But it is only the secular, freedoms of the west of the past 200-300 years that allowed that kind of openness and freedom to explore and investigate and even give a speech on. The Pact of Umar forbid the Christians and the Jews to even read the Qur'an and learn about Islam in this kind of way.
She identified herself as "an agnostic Jew". This means she does "not know" if there is a God or not.
That is unbelief; a little better than outright atheism.
Her Jewish identity is ethnic, not religious. Since she admits she is agnostic, this means she really had no faith and therefore rejects even the Old Testament, the faith of her forefathers and ancestors.
Is not "agnosticism" unbelief, according to Islam ?? She is not a practicing Jew; so she would probably and consistently (according to real Islam) be considered an unbeliever (pagan, infidel, atheist) in Islamic history up until the modern era, 1924, when the Khalifate was abolished.
She gave a "politically correct" version of Islam.
The number 72 is not in the Qur'an about the houri, but it is in a hadith and commentary by Ibn Kathir.
One cannot understand the Qur'an without the hadith, tafsirs, tarikh, sirat, etc. - together they give the context and the "esbab ol nozul" (reasons for the revelation) اسباب النزول
or "historical context"
Her explaination of Jihad was downright pitiful, only focusing on the second and/or third stage of Jihad. She left out the fourth stage, the final stage, which was all out war against all pagans/atheists/polytheists/unbeleivers - she, as a Jewish woman, would have been killed, or expelled from Median/Arabia or taken as a concubine, as spoils of war.
Surah 9:29 - final stage of Jihad against the Jews and Christians - and this is proved by the actions that the Muslims did for centuries conquering all lands for Islam until some attacked nation/land stopped them.
Sahih Al Bukhari 4:196 Mohammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
by leaving out the final revelations about Jihad, she did not give an "enlightened" speech.
Also, it is true that the Qur'an describes paradise as one of the descriptions with the flowing rivers and green lushness - the desert Arabs longed for this because of their own harsh environment of desert. She said "it is fecundity" (fruitfulness, reproduction, fertility)
Do the houris, and eternal virgins, wives with swelling breasts have children? Are they fruitful, fertile?
If Muslims do not procreate in paradise, and the houris and wives of eternal freshness (swelling breasts) do not get pregnant, then her description is misleading and false; if there is no pregnancy or fruitfulness, then that is not fecundity for the humans in paradise. You can argue that the fruits and lushness and rivers and green is fecundity, but not the human relations. It seems to be eternal sex and their virginity returns to them.
Yes, there are fruits and dates, etc. as rewards, but she is avoiding the reality of most of the Islamic history of interpretation of the "houris" by saying, "we just don't know".
According to most Islamic commentators, the wives/virgins/houris will become virgins again after sex and provide eternal sexual pleasures for the men.
The slide of the virgin Mary, and the way she made fun of that, was ironic, and misleading, (so not very enlightened) since Muslims also believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.
She is just wrong to say that Jihad meant, "You can kill them", but not "you must", when there are other clear commands in imperative verb command form in Arabic, "kill the unbelievers where ever you find them" and "slay/fight/kill (Qatal) the people of the book"
That is not enlightened, but misleading and down right false!
Then, she says, "better if you don't" and got a rousing applause - come on - that is not what the Qur'an says or taught nor Islamic history.
In the 7th Century, Muhammad said: "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims" (Sahih Muslim 4366). Medinah, which had a massive Jewish population when Muhammad came to town as a peacemaker, watched its Jewish population disappear at the hands of Muhammad. The Caliphs would carry on Muhammad's work of expelling the Jews, as would later Muslims.
This is another example of political correctness gone wild.
The Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
"'The smallest sign that a person has faith (emaan-re-affirmation) is that a person moves an obstacle on the path of a traveler, and the highest sign of faith is to say la ilaha il law lah' -Fath Al Bari The 77 Branches of Faith."
The problem is that she as an agnostic, is NOT admitting "la ilaha il law lah" - "there is no God but Allah" لا اله الا الله
so, how can that be faith?
You can say she is very nice and respectful and is seemingly trying to understand Islam; it seems.
Although, "feel, don't analyze" is kind of like, "don't think" - just say the Arabic words and chant it musically, don't need to understand with your mind. This is how Iranians and Turks and other non-Arabic speakers were subjected for centuries. They don't really know or understand the deeper things of the Qur'an. They just submitted and do the external laws of Sharia and if one doesn't rebel, they can be nominal Muslims.
"This Jewish woman has enough goodness in her heart to bring 70,000 Jews into paradise with her! Mash'Allah."
Where is that in the Qur'an or Hadith? She does not even believe in Allah yet. She is not even a monotheist, she admits she is agnostic. "I don't know". come on!" The Qur'an says, "believe and do good deeds"; not only "do good deeds".
If I was Khilafa she would always be welcomed in all the lands of Islam, without the least difficulty. Most welcome.
That's good,and I commend you for that kind thought; but you were not the first Khalifs, Abu Bakr, or Omar, or Uthman or Muaywiya, or any other Khalif until the Khalifate was abolished in 1924; etc. and they all expelled all the Jews from Medina and Arabia and killed and subjugated them in other lands like Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, etc.
The Ottomans welcomed many Jews from the expulsions from Europe, true. But that was later! Original Islam killed them and get rid of them and drove them all out of Arabia.
On the pact of Umar -
http://islamreview.blogspot.com/2006/05/pact-of-umar-islam.html
Jews and Christians are not allowed to build new houses of worship. This automatically means that is not true that they may legally continue to practice Christianity or Judaism.
Also, Christians are not allowed to Evangelize and convert Muslims. This automatically means that the Christians are not really allowed to remain Christians or practice their religion, because evangelism is commanded by the true God (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 17:30-31; Luke 24:44-49; John 20:21; 2 Cor. 5:11; Romans 15:20-21, Revelation 5:9; 7:9, etc.) Also, evangelism is one of the highest forms of love. Romans 5:1-11
Islam is cruel and unjust and stifles freedom.
Islam is unjust and cruel, because it says, "Whoever leaves Islam, kill him".
Ibn Abbaas said : The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Hadith, Sahih Al-Bukhari (number 6922)
Abd-Allah ibn Masood said : The Messenger of Allah said : “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases : a soul (in case of murder) ; a married person who commits adultery ; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims.” Sahih Al Bukhari number 6484 and Sahih Muslim number 1676
These are clear and "Sahih" (genuine, correct, right) Hadith - that all Sunni Muslims agree on.
The Qur'an also seems to have a special hatred toward the Jews (and idolaters):
لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا ۖ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ
"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant."
I am glad Muhammad and the early Muslims thought the Christians were somewhat good, devoted to learning and their Scriptures, sought separation from worldly temptations, and were not arrogant - is this the fruit of the Spirit of the true God? (Galatians 5:22-23)
Hello Akakius,
If I have not already extended a welcome to you, I do so now. Thanks much for your participation here.
I too appreciated and enjoyed the recent threads (specifically, the excellent dialogue in the comboxes) on the monarchy of God; and I agree with your assessment that the "academic level" was outstanding. I just received over the weekend Christopher A. Beeley's book, Gregory Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God, and may resume my series on the monarchy after I have finished reading it.
As for Islam, I shall for now direct you to my upcoming comments to Ken's last few contributions, that I hope to post later today (the Lord willing).
Grace and peace,
David
Hi GV19,
I noticed that you had taken a bit of a hiatus from posting on your blog (sincerely hope all is well with you and yours), so I did not know if you would be stopping by here—it is so good to see that you have—I am glad that you enjoyed Lesley's somewhat brief lecture; she is a marvelous communicator!
Grace and peace,
David
Hello Ken,
Nice to see you back; you were missed in the combox of the previous thread ("The Monarchy": god the Father of the Essence/Godhead?).
You posted:
>>There are many positive things about her efforts to be nice and understanding to the Muslims and Islam.
But it is only the secular, freedoms of the west of the past 200-300 years that allowed that kind of openness and freedom to explore and investigate and even give a speech on. The Pact of Umar forbid the Christians and the Jews to even read the Qur'an and learn about Islam in this kind of way.>>
Me: Cannot the same be said for Christianity? I know for a fact that "heretics" were executed at least well into the 16th century (let's not forget Calvin's Geneva, and the shocking treatment of the Anabaptists by the Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed folk).
>> She identified herself as "an agnostic Jew". This means she does "not know" if there is a God or not.
That is unbelief; a little better than outright atheism.>>
Me: Do not wish to quibble over words, but IMHO, I cannot help but acknowledge that agnosticism is much more than "a little better than outright atheism", especially when one reflects on the hatred of God that is so prevalent in the recent writings and debates of the "New" atheist movement.
>> Her Jewish identity is ethnic, not religious. Since she admits she is agnostic, this means she really had no faith and therefore rejects even the Old Testament, the faith of her forefathers and ancestors.>>
Me: What do you mean by, "rejects even the Old Testament"? Are you saying that she unable to affirm theism, or are you saying that she sees no value at all in the writings of the OT?
>> She gave a "politically correct" version of Islam.>>
Me: Interesting...IMHO, I believe that she gave the Qur'anic version of Islam, without some of the corrupted interpretations by the supporters of the various imperial dynasties that dominated Islam for centuries.
>> One cannot understand the Qur'an without the hadith, tafsirs, tarikh, sirat, etc. - together they give the context and the "esbab ol nozul" (reasons for the revelation) اسباب النزول
or "historical context">>
Me: Hmmm...the earliest sirat give us a different 'picture' than the later ones, and I do not think that Ms. Hazleton is a novice in this field; take note of her following book:
After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split In Islam
Grace and peace,
David
But it is only the secular, freedoms of the west of the past 200-300 years that allowed that kind of openness and freedom to explore and investigate and even give a speech on. The Pact of Umar forbid the Christians and the Jews to even read the Qur'an and learn about Islam in this kind of way.>>
David Waltz wrote:
Me: Cannot the same be said for Christianity?
Not for the early period 33 AD - 313 AD. Christians were persecuted. They had no political power. So, no, they did not have the state to protect them. Islam grew by the opposite way, by force and violence and war.
I know for a fact that "heretics" were executed at least well into the 16th century (let's not forget Calvin's Geneva, and the shocking treatment of the Anabaptists by the Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed folk).
Yes, but that is why I wrote for the past 200-300 years. It took that long to shake off the leftovers from the Roman Catholic Medieval Synthesis and marriage of church and state; and why I think that the Baptist movement of some kind of correctly informed Christian worldview of morality of separation of church from government (but not the modern idea of separation of morality or evangelism or talk about Jesus or God from politics) was the right one, in the issue of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism and separating the government out of the church so that the Christians would stop killing each other. That is why I am not a Theonomist, although I agree with the morality and worldview of someone like Gary DeMar, I don't agree with the enforcing of punishments of death penalty for adultery or homosexuality. ( But I do agree with the death penalty for first degree murder - Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:1-8ff)
David Waltz wrote:
Me: What do you mean by, "rejects even the Old Testament"? Are you saying that she unable to affirm theism, or are you saying that she sees no value at all in the writings of the OT?
That is the way she came across to me; a Jewish person who is "agnostic" means they don't know if any of that stuff is true; they doubt it; they don't believe in miracles or / and they are embarrassed about the violence and holy wars in the OT and the preference and election of the Jewish people in the OT.
David wrote:
Me: Interesting...IMHO, I believe that she gave the Qur'anic version of Islam, without some of the corrupted interpretations by the supporters of the various imperial dynasties that dominated Islam for centuries.
NO! Muhammad himself commanded the force of all pagan Arabs to become Muslims. Surah 9:1ff and 8:39 and the Hadith I quoted above. These are not only the later dynasties beginning with the Umayyid dynasty in Damascus under Muawiyah and Yazid, etc. They didn't begin suddenly with later centuries, it was part and parcel and the nature of Islam from the beginning. Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman were also carrying out what they saw in the "prophet" Muhammad - force and subjugation.
Muhammad himself commanded them to fight the Christians and Jews. (Surah 9:29) How many times are just going to outright ignore this verse?!!!
Muhammad himself ordered the slitting of the throats of the 600 (?) or so Jews of Media after the battle of Khaibar.
Yeah, I saw her book and noticed that she mentioned traveling in the middle east, listening to Bedouins recite poetry and the Qur'an, and she said something like, her Arabic was "reduced to looking in the dictionary", etc.
That's great; and I commend for all of that; and I wish I could do that also - travel and learn and listen and learn Arabic - yes - I said those were positive things.
She needed to explain more about her Arabic studies.
I have not read her book, I admit; and yet, I sincerely want to; but at the same time; it is hard to trust someone with such a "politically correct" left wing version of Islam and her mocking of the Bible and Christianity was evident.
According to Bassam Zawadi, the earliest Sirat is Ibn Ishaq's and he said it was the worst.
(I am pretty sure that he said that in his debate with Tony Costa on Muhammad's doubt about his own salvation.)
Are you going to say the earliest Sirat is the worst also? and then say all the violent and unjust stuff is centuries later?
That is not consistent.
Nice to see you back; you were missed in the combox of the previous thread ("The Monarchy": god the Father of the Essence/Godhead?).
Thanks, I just could not drink it all in and understand it all in a short period of time; it was deep. I am just now getting to read some of your article, much less the 45 some odd comments.
I try not to comment on something I don't know about, so on that, (since I hardly have ever even heard of most of the EO theologians and books you quote, etc.) I needed to sit back and let you and the other Eastern Orthodox folks "hash it out"; digesting it for a later time.
It is interesting that the Divine nature/essence θεοτητος ( I think that was one of the Greek words discussed) is used of Jesus in Colossians 2:9 and implied in Colossians 1:19.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
David Waltz said,
"Me: Interesting...IMHO, I believe that she gave the Qur'anic version of Islam, without some of the corrupted interpretations by the supporters of the various imperial dynasties that dominated Islam for centuries."
David is a man who can see! Mash'Allah!
Btw the reason I gave the story of the person with faith from Fath Al Bari was in response to the woman being a self proclaimed agnostic.
God is powerful, beautiful, dreadful, majestic, subtle, and unfortunately the conversation of breakfast tables, chat forums and blogs.
Maybe this woman has more reverence and respect for God than the rest of us who proclaim him outwardly.
When you say la ilaha il law lah (try and say it it won't kill you)...your lips do not move. Your tongue moves.
It is said from WITH IN.
Notice she covered her head the whole time when speaking about the Qur'an. I picked up on that. In our tradition that is very reverent and respectful not to Muslims but to Allah!
This blog is called articulifide the articles of faith. Maybe it would be fruitful if one day we had a discussion on what exactly is faith.
An Anglican man from the U.K came into my Mosque recently and said he couldn't be a Muslim because he couldn't bend his knees.
I responded and said to him, "can you bend your heart?" and he was very happy and replied "beautiful!" to which I said, "Allot of people bend their knees but they do not bend their hearts"...
When I read the Qur'an, and the Hadith, and the laws and guidance and instructions that Muslim sheiks and Imams give to their people, the emphasis is on externals - "pronounce the Shahada!" - say, repeat, recite, and bow, prostrate, etc. wash properly, ghusl and wodu غسل و وضو
There is much in the Qur'an about prostrating and washing and the right foods to eat. Surah 5:3 says that "today your religion has been perfected, the religion of Islam", but if you read the context and surrounding context, it is all about which foods are ok to eat and not, who one can marry, proper washings for going to the bathroom, zakat, prayers, etc.
There is some talk of the heart and motives and the inner self in Islam, but it does not seem to be the emphasis. The emphasis seems to be on the externals.
GV19 - can you show us textual confirmation and evidence of your advice to that man to which you said, "can you bow in your heart" ??
Where in the Qur'an is that?
Where is that emphasis on the heart and internal motives?
The emphasis on the heart is what Christianity and the Bible is about.
The Hijab (head covering)/ Chadour (Farsi for "tent", "covering" for women/ Niqab (veils) covers women, but it can never cleanse the heart and get rid of lust in the heart of a man.
Modesty is good; but the emphasis on externals creates and promotes more hypocrisy, Pharisees, and pride and arrogance.
But the Bible's emphasis is on the heart and the inside and if the inside is changed first, then the outside behavior can be changed.
Genesis 6:5
Deut. 6:4-6
Deut. 30:5
Jeremiah 17:9
Ezekiel 14:1-7
Matthew 5:22 ff
Matthew 5:28
Matthew chapter 15 / Mark chapter 7
Matthew 23:23-26
Mark 7:14-23 - it is not what you eat that defiles you, but what comes out of your mouth, because it comes from your heart - evil thoughts, pride, foolishness, sensuality, lust, jealousy, hatred, etc.
John 3:1-8 - you must be born again, born spiritually, born from above, by the Spirit of God.
Islam's emphasis is on the externals; and behavior; and the method of political Islam is to first establish the Sharia - which is externals - then they preach Islam and deal with apostates by execution and rebellion by punishments.
I hope you know that this is a sincere question about the nature and emphasis in Islam.
Surah 8:39 - fight them until rebellion ( fitnah - فتنه) is no more . . .
"just submit", "don't rebel", "don't create tumult and confusion and corruption in society", etc.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; you wrote:
==NO! Muhammad himself commanded the force of all pagan Arabs to become Muslims. Surah 9:1ff and 8:39 and the Hadith I quoted above. These are not only the later dynasties beginning with the Umayyid dynasty in Damascus under Muawiyah and Yazid, etc. They didn't begin suddenly with later centuries, it was part and parcel and the nature of Islam from the beginning. Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman were also carrying out what they saw in the "prophet" Muhammad - force and subjugation.
Muhammad himself commanded them to fight the Christians and Jews. (Surah 9:29) How many times are just going to outright ignore this verse?!!!==
Me: OK, you have me very 'confused' now, for I have not 'ignored' Surah 9:29; in fact, I discussed this ayah (and other related ayat) at length in the combox of the Islam: Threat or Not? thread. Your bold assertion is even more puzzling given the fact that I have links (available since early 12/2010) to this very ayah under the ISLAM LINKS section on the right side-bar!!!
Seeker's Guidance - Jihad, Abrogation in the Quran & the "Verse of the Sword"
Surah 9:29 Discussed
Commonly Misquoted Verses - Surah 9:29
Upon reflection, I cannot help but think that it is you who is doing the 'ignoring', for there is a considerable amount of information that is available (scholarly and 'popular') which counters your narrow understanding of Surah 9:29.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
Yesterday, you posted:
==Yes, but that is why I wrote for the past 200-300 years. It took that long to shake off the leftovers from the Roman Catholic Medieval Synthesis and marriage of church and state; and why I think that the Baptist movement of some kind of correctly informed Christian worldview of morality of separation of church from government (but not the modern idea of separation of morality or evangelism or talk about Jesus or God from politics) was the right one, in the issue of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism and separating the government out of the church so that the Christians would stop killing each other. That is why I am not a Theonomist, although I agree with the morality and worldview of someone like Gary DeMar, I don't agree with the enforcing of punishments of death penalty for adultery or homosexuality. ( But I do agree with the death penalty for first degree murder - Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:1-8ff) ==
Me: I cannot help but think that your view of church and state is highly subjective, if not ' intellectually schizophrenic' (I am borrowing this phrase from Dr. Gary North). I read an informative collection of essays on this very subject back in the mid-80s, under the title: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture (Edited by James Jordan, published inn 1982).
I just did a Google search, and discovered that the book is available online for FREE!!!
The Failure of the American Baptist Culture
I would sure like to discuss this book with you (and anyone else who may be interested), once you have taken the time to read the 13 thought provoking essays.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi GV19,
What a graceful and thoughtful post! Towards the end, you wrote:
>>This blog is called articulifide the articles of faith. Maybe it would be fruitful if one day we had a discussion on what exactly is faith.>>
Me: An excellent suggestion!!! I would like you to think about composing an introductory post for a new thread, that I would publish here at AF (that is, of course, if you are interested).
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
My bad; I apologize; you are right in that you did not ignore the verse Surah 9:29; I just didn't remember exactly what you said about it, now that you reminded me of our discussion under a previous thread about Robert Spencer and the Mormon prof. you know.
I will have to go back later when I have more time to try and remember what exactly you said about that specific verse.
I did not notice the side bar references before, and now I have looked at some of that material. Sorry I did not notice it before.
Do you think Islam was justified in all out aggressive warfare against all of Persia, Levant (Syria-Palestine-Lebanon), Egpyt, N. Africa, Spain? till 732 AD Then attacking Byzantine and conquering Contstantinople in 1453 ? Then more? Bulgaria, Greece, Bosnia, etc.
Some of the details claimed in the side bar articles are certainly a challenge, which I will need to go and take a lot more time on studying that particular issue.
One of the things about the preparation for the battle of Tabouk is that there are no Byzantine records of this; only the Muslim sources.
Furthermore, what I looked at does not discuss the Hadith that talks of Muhammad's letters to Hericlius and Khosrow and "Embrace Islam and you will be safe" and "War is deciet" and "Khosrow will be no more", etc.
I referenced it before, and will have to dig it out and give the reference later.
In that Hadith, it gives the "asbab ol nuzul" (reasons for the revelation) for Surah 3:64, "come together and agree on common ground with us that there is no God but Allah, and call no one else Lord, etc.
I guess what I meant by ignoring it, is that you don't seem to see that it was the last stage of Jihad and that the Muslims carried it out in aggressive conquering. They claim they were liberating the peoples of the Middle east and Egypt and N. Africa and Spain from the oppression of the Byzantine Empire, but they had no moral right to do that, it seems to me.
Don't all these passages from Hadith Al Bukhari and the Quran prove that Islam is not a religion of peace?
Doesn't the aggressive attack against Persia and Byzantine and conquering of Persia, Levant, Egpyt, N. Africa, and Spain prove that Islam is an aggressive religion that seeks to conquer the world? ( Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb)
From the Hadith of Sahih Al Bukhari:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.191
Mohammad did indeed write letters both to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and the Persian Shah Khosroe (spelled Khusrau in the Hadith below) inviting them to Islam, saying “embrace Islam and you will be safe”. Because they both refused, the Arab Muslims attacked both empires. This was around 628 AD. Then after Muhammad died in 632 AD; the Muslims under Abu Bakr (the wars of Apostacy to force the Arabs back to Islam after Muhammad died), Omar (under him, generals went in both directions conquering the Persians and the Byzantines), and Uthman, by attacking both Persia and Byzantine (Egypt, Palestine, Syria, later other parts of N. Africa) were merely following the example of the prophet of Islam. It seems that an invitation to Islam means, “if you submit, you will be safe; but if you don’t, we have been commanded by Allah to fight you and do “Qtal” (fighting, slaying, killing) and “jihad” until there is submission. This seems to be where the doctrine of Dar Al Islam (the Abode or Territory of Submission) vs. Dar Al Harb (The Territory or Abode of War) comes from.
“fight them until there is no more fitna” (Quran, Surah 8:39) which does not mean “persecution”, but it means “rebellion”, “sedition”, “mutiny”; “commotion”.
Quran Surah 9:29 “fight the people of the book until they pay the jaziye, being brought low”
and 8:39 --
Pickthall “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.”
Yusuf Ali - "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do."
Here are the references below from Sahih Al Bukhari:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 189:
Narrated Anas:
When the Prophet intended to write a letter to the ruler of the Byzantines, he was told that those people did not read any letter unless it was stamped with a seal. So, the Prophet got a silver ring-- as if I were just looking at its white glitter on his hand ---- and stamped on it the expression "Muhammad, Apostle of Allah".
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 190:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
Allah's Apostle sent his letter to Khusrau [The King of Persia] and ordered his messenger to hand it over to the Governor of Bahrain who was to hand it over to Khusrau. So, when Khusrau read the letter he tore it. Said bin Al-Musaiyab said, "The Prophet then invoked Allah to disperse them with full dispersion, (destroy them (i.e. Khusrau and his followers) severely)".
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191:
Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas:
Allah's Apostle wrote to Caesar [Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantine Empire] and invited him to Islam and sent him his letter with Dihya Al-Kalbi whom Allah's Apostle ordered to hand it over to the Governor of Busra who would forward it to Caesar. Caesar as a sign of gratitude to Allah, had walked from Hims to Ilya (i.e. Jerusalem) when Allah had granted Him victory over the Persian forces. So, when the letter of Allah's Apostle reached Caesar, he said after reading t, 'Seek for me any one of his people! (Arabs of Quraish tribe) if present here, in order to ask him about Allah's Apostle.
. . . [too long for this paper, but you can look it up at the Hadith web-site] . . .
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html
Abu Sufyan added, "Caesar then asked for the letter of Allah's Apostle and it was read. Its contents were:--
"In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Heraclius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship. None but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..( Quran 3.64)
Abu Sufyan added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech, there was a great hue and cry caused by the Byzantine Royalties surrounding him, and there was so much noise that I did not understand what they said. So, we were turned out of the court. When I went out with my companions and we were alone, I said to them, 'Verily, Ibn Abi Kabsha's (i.e. the Prophet's) affair has gained power. This is the King of Bani Al-Asfar fearing him." Abu Sufyan added, "By Allah, I remained low and was sure that his religion would be victorious till Allah converted me to Islam, though I disliked it "
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "War is deceit."
There are several words for “deceit” and “trickery” in Arabic, khod’e خدع , heileh, حیله and مکر makr.
Makr comes from the same root of the word used of Allah in the Quran 3:54; 8:30; 10:22 - Allah is the very best deceiver ( Makara - deceiver, trickster, schemer) The English translations downplay the deception and lying aspect of this word to “plotter”, “planner”. In all honesty, it does not really seem to carry that innocuous meaning.
The Farsi Bible uses this word, “makr” for deceit and guile and says in I Peter 2:22, that Jesus has no sin and no deceit or guile in him. No “makr”, none! Also, this word is used in John 1:47, about Nathaniel, “an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile”. (no deceit, contrasting with Jacob and his deception.)
The character of Allah as a deceiver and trickster is quite different than the character of Jesus and the God of the Bible, who cannot lie. (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18; I John 1:5)
On the Issue of the idea of Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb and the dhimmi peoples (protected minorities, Christians and Jews who were allowed to continue as long as they pay the Jaziye; but the Christians could not preach the gospel to Muslims):
Also, it does not matter if the exact words, "Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb" are not in the Quran or Hadith - these Hadith above and below along with Surah 9 Tobeh , “Repentance” (especially 9:5; 9:14; and 9:29; and 8:39) all show the textual foundation for those doctrines.
This is clear Hadith and shows that Islam by nature and its history attacked Persia and Byzantine in aggressive warfare and was not stopped until the battle of Tours in France in 732 AD; and this conflict continued by the aggressive Seljuk Turks in 1071 AD at Van and then after the Crusades the Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453.
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387)
These along, with the other clear ones from Al Bukhari that I quoted earlier, about attacking Khosrow, the Shah of Iran and Caesar (Heraclius, emperor of Byzantines) and the letters that Mohammad sent to them, all this shows that Islam in inherently warlike and seeks to spread Islam by force and aggressive war.
This shows being a "dhimmi" or "zimmi" (protected minority peoples, Jews and Christians) is not just "protection" in general, but "protection from the Muslims themselves - Omar said, "protection from me".
From Sahih Al Bukhara -
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, [jaziye - see Surah 9:29] so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
.....This is for those who's hearts is not rancor and anger...
"The Day when neither wealth nor children shall profit, only he who comes before God with a sound heart"... Quran 26:88-89
Mash'Allah! Beautiful!
Many of the People of the Scripture wish they could turn you back to disbelief after you have believed, out of envy from themselves after the truth has become clear to them. So pardon and overlook until Allah delivers His command. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. (Holy Qur'an 2:109)
"You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." (John 5:39,40).
The problem is that many people today are people of the book rather than people of the heart.
We invite the people of the book to become people of the heart!
David,
You seem to play "devil's advocate" for many different positions, never committing to any definitely.
You are more positive toward Islam than
Theonomy; Reformed
or
a Baptist kind of understanding of church and state
yet
you reject Reformed theology
So, do you think what Islam did what just and good? - ie conquering Egypt, N. Africa, (wiping out the church in Algeria, Tunisia (hippo, Carthage, etc.), Lybia, Morocco) then conquering Spain, attacking Constantinople for centuries until finally subduing it in 1453?
Conquering Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, N. Arabia (and what later became Jordan, etc.); Persia (Iraq and Iran), etc.?
You seem to think all that was ok?
Was it ok to force the Arabs back to Islam by the Ridda Wars (Wars of Apostasy) by Abu Bakr ? (632-634 AD) Was it ok to wipe out all the Jews and Christians from Arabia?
Is it ok for Islam to have the law of apostasy? "Whoever leaves Islam, kill him" (Hadith, Sahih Al Bukhari - below)
Islam is unjust and cruel, because it says, "Whoever leaves Islam, kill him".
Ibn Abbaas said : The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Hadith, Sahih Al-Bukhari (number 6922)
You use Theonomy in your arguments against "the Baptist position", but you really don't believe in that either, for that is what Calvin's Geneva did. (basically)
Do you think the answer is to let Islam take over so they can institute their "justice" against unbelievers, adulterers, homosexuals, apostates, Christians, and Jews?
If Islamic law does get a foothold in the west, it will be bad for all; for it they have power, they will shut down freedom of thought, debate, evangelism, missions, and the building of new churches.
Honor killings will increase, and all sorts of cruelties against women.
GV19,
By quoting John 5:39-40, that Jesus says "come to Me", it means coming to Him for all that He is - Son of God, God the Son, Messiah, died on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the Father's right hand, etc. He is Lord and God incarnate. the Second person of the Trinity who became flesh. John 1:1-5; 1:14
You have given one verse that mentions the heart from the Qur'an. I am sure there are a few others, but it is not the emphasis in Islam.
The emphasis in Islam is on external laws and obeying them, submitting to authorities, etc.
I gave lots of verses about the heart and the internal; yet you ignored all of that.
It is not Islam that promotes being people of heart, rather it is Christianity that does that. The Bible/the book of God speaks to the heart.
You must be born again spiritually, from above, by the Holy Spirit, in the heart.
John 3:1-8
John 4:14
John 7:37-39
Islam does not have that; only external law and rituals.
That is one reason why Sufi-ism
Sufism or taṣawwuf (Arabic: تصوّف)
was started, because Islam is so external, it needed something that focused on the internal and it needed something about love and connecting to God; for without Sufi-ism, it is empty rituals, external law, and Jihad and Qatal and harb.
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for responding; you wrote:
>> My bad; I apologize; you are right in that you did not ignore the verse Surah 9:29; I just didn't remember exactly what you said about it, now that you reminded me of our discussion under a previous thread about Robert Spencer and the Mormon prof. you know.
I will have to go back later when I have more time to try and remember what exactly you said about that specific verse.
I did not notice the side bar references before, and now I have looked at some of that material. Sorry I did not notice it before.
Do you think Islam was justified in all out aggressive warfare against all of Persia, Levant (Syria-Palestine-Lebanon), Egpyt, N. Africa, Spain? till 732 AD Then attacking Byzantine and conquering Contstantinople in 1453 ? Then more? Bulgaria, Greece, Bosnia, etc.>>
Me: Apology not needed (all of us can forget combox dialogue), but thanks. As for my basic position on Surah 9:29 (and related ayat) is the it is CONDITIONAL, NOT UNCONDITIONAL in its application.
Moving on to the post-Quranic/Muhammad era, perhaps you remember that I made reference to the "Rightly Guided Caliphs", and that after the death of Ali, imperialistic ambitions took precedence over the limits set by the Qur'an and Muhammad. I think Hans Küng in his massive, Islam - Past, Present & Future cogently sums up the 'picture' in what he terms a "paradigm change":
==Instead of the companions of the Prophet and the earlier Muslim elite, the dynasty of the Umayyads was to rule for almost a century. However, they had, opportunistically, confessed Islam only after the conquest of Mecca.
The interests of the Umayyad caliphs were concentrated on the political leadership and organized administration of the new empire rather than on the religion and theology of Islam. (Page 190)==
It sure seems to this beachbum that such an attitude has dominated the various rulers and dynasties that came after the period of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs", including many Muslim countries of our present day.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
This morning you posted the following:
>>You seem to play "devil's advocate" for many different positions, never committing to any definitely.
You are more positive toward Islam than
Theonomy; Reformed
or
a Baptist kind of understanding of church and state
yet
you reject Reformed theology>>
Me: Not "devil's advocate", but rather one who believes that all of us need to be consistent in our approach to the competing truth claims. I believe that you approach Reformed Baptist Christianity with a different set of rules than you use when examining Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Islam. Much of my dialogue with you is an attempt to strip away apparent double-standards in play, opting instead a methodology that is consistent when applied to the various competing paradigms.
As for my being more "positive toward[s] Islam than Theonomy; Reformed or a Baptist understanding of church and state", for now, all I can say is that if one truly believes that God has given man divinely revealed Law/Laws, then a true believer will look to God's Law, rather than secular humanism, for guidance in state affairs.
Grace and peace,
David
Ok, David,
So, do you think the laws of the OT and the punishments for blasphemy, working on the Sabbath Day, adultery, etc are supposed to be executed today?
What about the change from the Old covenant theocracy to the new government ( NT ) church of God's people in all nations; where the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel? ( ie, no more "holy wars" as in Deut. 7, 9, I Sam. 15 (a passage GV19 loves to site; Joshua, etc.) - Jesus took the kingdom away from political Israel - Matthew 21:33-46
How is interpreting that - that the NT interprets and fulfills the OT ( Hebrews - no more sacrifices); Mark 7:19; Acts 10 - no more food laws; Colossians 2, Gal. 4 - no more feast/new moon/Sabbath laws; - how is interpreting these things in this way, not consistent?
Romans 13 and Genesis 9:6 show that first degree murder is supposed to be punished by execution. That one, along with just police force and just wars of defense against Nazis/totalitarian regimes/communist attacks or threats and Islamic terrorism would also seem to be valid to fit in that understanding.
You have not demonstrated anything specific where I am inconsistent.
David,
About Islam; ok, for now, for the sake of clarity and argument, you seem to be saying that the corrupt Islamic governments started with Muawiyah/Yazid and the Ummayad Dynasty (they are also the ones who brutally slaughtered Hossein at the battle of Karbala in 680 AD in modern Iraq.)
So, the attacks (Ridda Wars against Apostates) of Abu Bakr to force all former Muslims to come back to Islam was justified? The Wars of Apostasy? 632-634 AD
Muhammad's new revelations to start attacking the Meccan caravans was justified? (which led to the battle of Badr)
Muhammad's new convenient revelation to take Zainab as his wife and force Zaid, his adopted son was justified?
Omar's Jihads and holy wars against Persia and Palestine/Syria/Egypt were all justified? 634-644 AD
Uthman's Jihads (644-655 AD) were justified and good and right?
Yes or no?
You seem to say that only the Umayids and afterward were wrong.
So, are you saying that the period of the rightly guided Khalifs was right and good and just and they were carrying out Muhammad's command in Surah 8:39 and 9:29 justly and that the Qur'an is a revelation from God?
Hi Ken,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly; you posted:
>>So, do you think the laws of the OT and the punishments for blasphemy, working on the Sabbath Day, adultery, etc are supposed to be executed today?>>
Me: If one is not a Calvinist (in the full sense), then I would say that an Anabaptist, Dispensational, JW, and/or Socinian understanding of the relationship between the OT and the NT negates the laws and principles set forth for civil government in the OT. However, if one adopts Calvin's covenantal system, a system that does not posit a sharp distinction between the OT and the NT, then I would say that any law and principle that is not clearly abrogated in the NT is still valid. (BTW, you still have not answered why you believe civil government should look to secular humanism for guidance rather than the OT.)
>>What about the change from the Old covenant theocracy to the new government ( NT ) church of God's people in all nations; where the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel? ( ie, no more "holy wars" as in Deut. 7, 9, I Sam. 15 (a passage GV19 loves to site; Joshua, etc.) - Jesus took the kingdom away from political Israel - Matthew 21:33-46>>
Me: You really need to read Calvin on this issue, whose teaching on the differences between the OT and NT are based on the principle of degree/s rather than sharp contrast. (I sincerely hope you take the time to read at the very least Peter a. Lillback's essay in The Failure of the American Baptist Culture [pages 185-232], for a good deal of your 'concerns' are clearly addressed by ones much more competent in this area of study than I.)
>>How is interpreting that - that the NT interprets and fulfills the OT ( Hebrews - no more sacrifices); Mark 7:19; Acts 10 - no more food laws; Colossians 2, Gal. 4 - no more feast/new moon/Sabbath laws; - how is interpreting these things in this way, not consistent?>>
Me: Calvin and theonomists do not maintain that their were NO changes from the OT to the NT, but neither do they maintain that ALL of the OT law was abrogated. St. Paul himself wrote:
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." (1 Tim. 1:8-11 - ASV)
>>Romans 13 and Genesis 9:6 show that first degree murder is supposed to be punished by execution.>>
Me: How do you get punishment by execution only for "first degree murder" out of Romans 13; please note:
"For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil." (Rom. 13:3, 4 - ASV)
I do not think that St. restricts evil (κακός) to just first degree murder!!!
con'td
cont'd
>>That one, along with just police force and just wars of defense against Nazis/totalitarian regimes/communist attacks or threats and Islamic terrorism would also seem to be valid to fit in that understanding.>>
Me: Interesting...does the NT make a distinction between say imperial Rome of the first century and the kings of the 'barbarian' nations? Further, you seem to ignore the possibility of a nation that has a Christian majority...
>>You have not demonstrated anything specific where I am inconsistent.>>
Me: Please read Lillback, and then get back to me.
Grace and peace,
David
More from Ken...
>>About Islam; ok, for now, for the sake of clarity and argument, you seem to be saying that the corrupt Islamic governments started with Muawiyah/Yazid and the Ummayad Dynasty (they are also the ones who brutally slaughtered Hossein at the battle of Karbala in 680 AD in modern Iraq.)
So, the attacks (Ridda Wars against Apostates) of Abu Bakr to force all former Muslims to come back to Islam was justified? The Wars of Apostasy? 632-634 AD
Muhammad's new revelations to start attacking the Meccan caravans was justified? (which led to the battle of Badr)
Muhammad's new convenient revelation to take Zainab as his wife and force Zaid, his adopted son was justified?
Omar's Jihads and holy wars against Persia and Palestine/Syria/Egypt were all justified? 634-644 AD
Uthman's Jihads (644-655 AD) were justified and good and right?
Yes or no?
You seem to say that only the Umayids and afterward were wrong.>>
Me: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, IF (please note the IF) one believes that Muhammad was a true prophet of God, and that the Qur'an is divine revelation from God.
>>So, are you saying that the period of the rightly guided Khalifs was right and good and just and they were carrying out Muhammad's command in Surah 8:39 and 9:29 justly and that the Qur'an is a revelation from God?>>
Me: Once again, IF...
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz wrote:
Me: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, IF (please note the IF) one believes that Muhammad was a true prophet of God, and that the Qur'an is divine revelation from God.
So, do you believe Muhammad was a true prophet from God and that the Qur'an is a fourth revelation from God? ( after Torah of Moses, Zabur of Davood, and Injil of Jesus?)
David Waltz wrote:
Me: Calvin and theonomists do not maintain that their were NO changes from the OT to the NT, but neither do they maintain that ALL of the OT law was abrogated.
Neither do non theonomist Reformed folks; of course the moral law is still in force to show us our sin and sanctify us and punish evil - as you quote from I Tim. below. But Paul never mentions the punishments in the passages that he could - like I Cor. 5 and I Cor. 6:9-11; although "turned him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh", I guess can be taken that way, if they interpreted the secular government as "Satan". ( I don't understand that interpretation)
Also, even though John 8:1-11 is not in the oldest manuscripts, it still seems like it should be part of the canon, because the principle of the teaching is true; it is consistent with Jesus' character, and it exposes the injustice of the Pharisees against women. (Where is the man? It takes two to commit adultery.)
St. Paul himself wrote:
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." (1 Tim. 1:8-11 - ASV)
Yes, I believe all of that - that the law of God restrains evil in society and shows us our sinfulness "in accordance with the gospel".
>>Romans 13 and Genesis 9:6 show that first degree murder is supposed to be punished by execution.>>
Me: How do you get punishment by execution only for "first degree murder" out of Romans 13; please note:
you make a good point here.
"For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil." (Rom. 13:3, 4 - ASV)
I do not think that St. restricts evil (κακός) to just first degree murder!!!
That is a good point. One has to look at other passages in combination with that to get down to the fact that it seems first degree murder is the one left that is clearly still valid, based on Genesis 9:6 and what Jesus taught in John 8 and how Paul deals with adultery issues in I Cor. 5-6.
The "bearing the sword not in vain" doesn't mean "only execution" either, but it certainly includes that - it also includes the threat of force - in modern terms, a club, tazers, guns, pepper spray - any weapon that will subdue criminals so that the police can handcuff them get off the streets and put them in jail until trial.
Anyway, I don't see how it is inconsistent still, for Genesis 9:6 is clear and pre-Mosaic law; and western civilization wrestled with the other punishments for centuries. the Inquisitions and other tortures in the historical record just do not seem right.
When you see the passages where Paul lists sins and crimes like I Cor. 6:9-11 and I Cor. 5 (adultery with step mom - Paul says it is so bad even the pagans don't do that) - he seems to advocate church discipline (ex-communication) - and that they will be "in the world" that will either pressure them to repent or be judged by God. Those passages in the NT do not seem to call upon the state to them carry out a trial and execute them.
Also, because there is a change from the OT to the NT as far as the churches in other nations and having to deal with different governments, and the fact that the kingdom of God was taken away from political Israel ( Matthew 21:33-46, which you did not comment on; see also I Peter 2:9-10 (the church in pagan societies cannot carry out punishments against blasphemy or Sabbath day breaking, etc.); combined with the passages on church discipline, my interpretation is consistent. You and Theonomists and Pacifists like Menonites and Amish and Quakers may disagree, but it is still a consistent hermeneutic, when you take into account all the relevant verses.
Back to Islam, in the end, (with the IF that you conceded) you are still agreeing that Muhammad and the Rashidoon Khalifs had the authority from Allah to fight (Qatal - قتل - this word coming from Arabic into Farsi is the word Iranians for murder also. Do not murder - قتل نکنید
based on Surah 8:39 and 9:1-14, and the Hadiths that I already sited, and Surah 9:29, the Muslims had the authority from God (assuming that Muhammad was a prophet from God and the Qur'an is true revelation) to kill the Jews and Christians in Arabia, or drive them out of Arabia; and in lands outside of Arabia, to subjugate them as dhimmis and humiliate them and force them to pay the jiziye and also unjustly take away their right to preach and teach and evangelize and build new churches; and to force all pagans/polytheists/infidels/atheists to either convert to Islam or be killed. The Rashidun period covers the conquering of all of Arabia, Palestine/Syria/Lebanon and Egypt into parts of Libya and most of Persia (Mesopotamia and beyond).
That is all still unjust; even without the corruption of the Umayids, Abbasids, Mamluks, and Ottomans afterward.
How can anyone trust Muslims to take over and do justly, when so much injustice and honor killings go on all the time?
The western system of separation of church and state (the good traditional view, informed by Biblical morality
(Magna Charta, etc. USA Declaration of Ind. and Constitution, from founding of USA to basically 1960s); not the left wing atheist/pure secular/ ACLU view (that one cannot even talk about God or Jesus in government or schools or say that homosexuality is a sin - Theses Liberals think that there is no right or wrong except racial prejudice, murder, and "homo-phobia"; and capitalism and drilling for oil)
-The traditional view of some kind of separation of church and state, with checks and balances and accountability, since that was informed by the Calvinist tradition that all men are evil and when they get power and are not accountable, they will do evil things.
Islam does not believe in original sin in the heart; so they don't have the principles nor the power to stop corruption when the government is an authoritarian government. What stops them from being unjust? Nothing. The result is the Umayyids, Abbasid, Fatimids, and Ottomans -
as Acton famously said, "power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely".
One of the great contributions to western civil government was the Calvinist tradition of total depravity and sinfulness deep in the heart of all humans and without accountability, it will corrupt even the best and most noble in positions of power.
Islam does not have that principle. It is all externals and force and fear. Most Iranians have been awakened to this and see it and understand it. Never before in history, they are turning away from Islam.
And Muslims should not say, "we were kind to the Jews and Christians and allowed them to practice their religion" - this is false and a lie. When one cannot evangelize, debate, share the gospel, preach to others, build new churches, they show that they have lied when they say that.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord...
"e: An excellent suggestion!!! I would like you to think about composing an introductory post for a new thread, that I would publish here at AF (that is, of course, if you are interested)."
I would be more than honored to such. Right now I am reviewing two debates, as well as reading some material for a few blog post on my site. I have been busy giving presentations on Islam lately and helping people who have sustained interest in the faith.
Ken says,
"The Farsi Bible uses this word, “makr” for deceit and guile and says in I Peter 2:22, that Jesus has no sin and no deceit or guile in him. No “makr”, none! Also, this word is used in John 1:47, about Nathaniel, “an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile”. (no deceit, contrasting with Jacob and his deception.)"
Notice once again no links...what Farsi Bible did he get this from? Hmmm I wonder indeed!
Ken also says,
"Anyway, I don't see how it is inconsistent still, for Genesis 9:6 is clear and pre-Mosaic law; and western civilization wrestled with the other punishments for centuries. the Inquisitions and other tortures in the historical record just do not seem right."
He sure has a funny way of putting things into perspective. I don't think I read any where David where you advocated 'inquisition or torture'.
I think that Ken is not realization that people like Gary Demar would call him out on his inconsistencies.
How don't understand how Ken can be against torture in Europe but yet support torture in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?
But when a person is that inconsistent it does not surprise.
GV19-
I sincerely wish and pray that you get true peace of Al Masih - John 14:27; Matthew 11:28-30; Romans 5:1-11; Ephesians chapter 2.
I was very clear against the Abu Gharib scandal - it was shameful and I even clearly wrote that in the new post of David's on "the Failure of Baptist American Culture" and your comment about the crusades - I responded to that; (maybe you haven't read that yet - check the time and date, ) which shows you didn't read what I wrote. Go back and read. The Abu Gharib scandal and other wrong atrocities that are done destroyed the other heroic just war action; it was wrong.
I have not seen any report that there was torture at Gitmo.
Hi GV19,
So good to hear that you are interested in creating a thread on faith for publication here. Sounds like you are quite busy right, so no hurry on this. When you are ready, just email your contribution to me, and I will post it.
Thanks much!
Grace and peace,
David
Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
Notice once again no links...what Farsi Bible did he get this from? Hmmm I wonder indeed!
The oldest translation of the Bible into Farsi from 1895 is in Pdf form here.
http://www.persianwo.org/Persian%20Bible%201895.pdf
You will have to scroll down to get the books of John and I Peter; unfortunately it doesn't have ways to click straight to each book. If you know how to read the Arabic script, you should at least be able to see and find what I am talking about.
This is the standard Farsi traditional and very literal translation. Possibly equivalent to the King James Version in English in the English speaking world. This Farsi bible is the one most used for formal reading and preaching / teaching in the churches in Iran and for deep exegesis. The other translations are for easier understanding, but this one combines both literalness and high poetic literature; and has the most Arabic in it.
(There are also 3 other versions of the Bible in Farsi - 2 full Bibles and 1 other NT translation.
1. There is a "Living Bible" kind of very open, paraphrase kind of translation; (good for less educated people.)
2. a "Good news for Modern Man"/or NIV type equivalent;
3. and the newest one, which has not finished the OT translation yet would be sort of equivalent to the NASB or ESB. "
Here is the traditional translation; very good and literal with more Arabic words. But very high literature like poetry and some Iranians have a hard time understanding it in places.
It uses the Arabic word “makr” مکر
At John 1:47 and I Peter 2:22. (Also I Peter 2:1) I give you my own English translation, but you can compare with the standard English translations.
http://www.persianwo.org/Persian%20Bible%201895.pdf
یوحنا 47:1
و عیسی چون دید که نتناییل به سوی او می آید، درباره او گفت: "اینک اسراییلی حقیقی که در او مکری نیست
see
مکری
The grammar in Farsi requires a ی at the end. Its a Farsi thing.
John 1:47
And Jesus when he saw that Nathaniel was coming to Him, about him said, “behold, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit/lying.” (or guile, trickery, deception)
اول پطرس 22:2
که هیچ گناهی نکرد و مکر در زبانش یافت نشد."
1 Peter 2:22
“Who, did not sin, and no deceit / guile/ trickery/lying was found on His tongue.”
see the makr مکر ?
It is there!
Comment # 2 under David's post about the "Failure of American Baptist Culture" - (GV19 - you made the first comment, and had a comment on Protestants railing against Roman Catholics about the Crusades ) --
"railing on Roman Catholics by Protestants about the Crusades" -
here is part of my post:
The crusades (1095-1299 AD) was response to all of that. It would not have been so bad, except they carried it out wrongly, with lots of atrocities, and the false theology of indulgences and penance and purgatory drove it.
when mistakes are made and excesses and atrocities are carried out; it ruins the rest of the noble and good heroic defensive fighting against evil. ( like the Abu Gharib scandal and other mistakes of killing civilians ruins the testimony of all the other good noble and justice accomplishment in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
The Crusades were certainly understandable from a human point of view why Europe would launch them in response and with a feeling of justice and self-defense.
http://www.farsinet.com/ChristInPersianPoetry/classical_poets1.html
Here is another interesting web-site which gives lots of English translations of famous Iranian poets, most of them were Sufis ( like Hafez, Mowlana (Rumi), Saadi)and their attraction to Christ ( Isa Al Masih; عیسی المسیح and Christianity.
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for the links that you posted last night. The link to the "English translations of famous Iranian poets" brought back to mind a marvelous work published back in 2001: The Muslim Jesus - Sayings and Stories In Islamic Literature.
Have you read this book? It is a must read IMHO. In the introduction the author states:
"...certain Shi'i sects (for example the Ismailis) were said by other Shi'is to come close to embracing Christian concepts like the Trinity."
And:
"The Jesus of Islamic Sufism became a figure not easily distinguished from the Jesus of the Gospels..."
And:
"If some modern Western Christian scholars warn us against attaching overdue importance to the Qur'an epithets of Jesus as the "Word" and "Spirit" of God, in the Sufi texts these two epithets are absolutely central to the structure of his image."
Anyway, hope I have stimulated some interest in the book...
Grace and peace,
David
Thanks David,
I certainly will look at it more when I have time. I looked a little bit at it today.
There is even a Muslim Iranian poet who does explain the Trinity in poetry, using silk as the nature, and three other words for certain kinds of silk as the 3 hypostasis (persons).
It may not be totally accurate theologically, but it helps connect with Iranians to quote this poem in their language when teaching on the Trinity.
The Sufis traveled around the conquered Byzantine and Mesopotamian world and encountered the Injeel (the NT) - they incorporated concepts from the Christians and the holy book into their poetry.
Also, the Qur'an got the "word" (kalameh) and Spirit from the Bible and previous revelation - John 1:1-5; 1:14; John 14-16; Romans 8, Galatians 4; and the Christians around them.
Not hard to figure that out.
But the Islamic scholars later had to re-interpret those concepts. Even the Qur'an does not interpet Jesus right; but it gets bits of good information and twists it, because Muhammad was illiterate (which Muslims admit) and he is just hearing things orally through other languages into Arabic from Syriac and Greek, etc.
But, yes, I look forward to reading of that book, and possible getting it one day.
with the name of Allah, peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,
Ken thanks!
It is there!
1 Corinthians 12:16
اما باشد، من بر شما بار ننهادم
بلکه چون حیلهگر بودم، شما را به مکر به چنگ آوردم.
see the makr مکر ? So the Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads Paul in the way of makr (deceit/guile/trickery/lying) = the Holy Spirit is a trickster, filled with guile, deceit and lying....
I mean according to the text.
Appreciate the link! So Paul caught the people using makr.
Interesting..
To the Grandverbalizer19 – you ignored 1 Peter 2:22 and John 1:47 !
First, it is 2 Cor. 12:16, not I Cor. 12:16
Secondly, you are using Ahmad Deedat type of debating tricks; shame on you!
Third, you took 2 Cor. 12:16 out of context.
Fourth, you ignored 1 Peter 2:22 and John 1:47; and that is wrong! You jumped to another verse with a different meaning and context and did not deal with 1 Peter 2:22 nor John 1:47. See also I Peter 2:1; and in the same book which you quote, namely 2 Corinthians, in 4:2, proves that Paul does not approve of trickery or deception or lying or guile - all of those contexts show what the meaning of makr is. مکر
Fifth, you need to read at least 2 Cor. chapters 10-12 completely to get Paul’s whole argument; and even better the whole book, to understand what was going on. (see especially also 2 Cor. 4:1-2 – where Paul renounces deception and trickery as sin. (same word, makr, مکر, is used in Farsi there also. Paul explains that in 2 Cor. 11:1-5, the Corinthians put up with false teachers and accept very easily false apostles who ask for money and they don’t realize it. Like the thousands of people who put up with false teachers like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar and Paula White and Joel Osteen and give their money to them, not recognizing their false teachings and actually giving their money to them and feeding their greed; yet not rebuking them for their real greed; yet, questioning Paul because he doesn’t charge or ask for money, yet they criticize him who is a true apostle. This is seen with 1 Corinthians also, especially chapter 9, that Paul did not burden them or take advantage of them or ask for money for his preaching and teaching. Paul, by being forced to actually prove to them is a true apostle, and boast about his weaknesses and persecutions (see chapter 11:1-32, where he lists all the persecutions he went through. He uses more irony by saying that he “robbed” other churches – not really, but by accepting gifts for his needs from other churches, he was able to minister to them.
Sixth, I am sure that David Waltz can confirm the meaning of this passage as of what I am saying as true, as irony and that Paul is being facetious, as he has lots of good bible commentaries. ( I don’t have that many of my own, in fact I don’t have a good exegetical commentary on 2 Cor. )
What about David? Will you testify and confirm the truth of what I am saying?
continued.
see more commentary below in between the verses of the immediate context around 2 Cor. 12:9-21
9And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
10Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
11I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me.
(comment: You forced me to boast about my weaknesses, sufferings, persecutions, and my not asking for money and not being a burden on you. You should have recognized that I was a true apostle and did not charge you money nor burden you - like the other false teachers and false apostles did; yet you accepted the false teachers and false apostles, and questioned me, who am a true apostle.)
Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.
12The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.
13For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!
(Comment: Paul did not make himself a burden by asking for money or payment for his preaching and evangelism and teaching; so when he says, “Forgive me this wrong!” – he is using irony here, which is obvious by the context, including chapters 10 and 11. )
continued
Part 3 of 2 Cor. 12:16 response to the Grandverbosity19!
14 Here for this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you; for I do not seek what is yours, but you; for children are not responsible to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.
(comment: See, he again says he will not be a burden by asking them to provide for him or asking for money. He considers himself like a spiritual father to them, and fathers /parents should provide for their children, not the other way around.)
15 I will most gladly spend and be expended for your souls. If I love you more, am I to be loved less?
(comment: Paul is willing to sacrifice his whole life for them; so he is unselfish and loving toward them and proves he is the true apostle (v. 12), and the other false apostles who were charging money, boastful, flashy, confident were the false one that the Corinthians should have recognized.
16 But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.
(Comment: In context, Paul is saying that since he did not ask for money, and so be a burden on them, this unselfishness and love and sacrifice for them was “tricky” and “crafty” and “deceitful” – obviously he is being facetious and using a literary tool of irony. In the same book, he renounced deception and trickery - 2 Cor. 4:2 – same word in Farsi, makr. مکر
And there are too many other verses that are not using irony or facetiousness to get a point across, which shows that this verse cannot be legitimately used to claim that Paul was deceptive or lying or tricky, because that would contradict everything else he wrote and the rest of the NT and OT also. )
17 Certainly I have not taken advantage of you through any of those whom I have sent to you, have I?
(comment: see, the context tells us what he means. By not being a burden or taking advantage, he did right. Doing right, which convinced them of him being good and right, was “tricky”, but not really. Paul is not approving of deception.)
18 I urged Titus to go, and I sent the brother with him Titus did not take any advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves in the same spirit and walk in the same steps?
( more proof of what he means, that he is not saying deception is good or that he really deceived them (see again 2 Cor. 4:2; but rather that by being godly and humble and by not asking for money, and by suffering and being weak, he proved himself a true apostle. The truth won them over to him and his apostleship. He uses "crafty" and "deception" for "win them over" or "convince them"; in a facetious and ironic way. (the opposite of the true meaning.)
19 All this time you have been thinking that we are defending ourselves to you. Actually, it is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ; and all for your up building, beloved.
20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;
21 I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.
(more proof that Paul does not approve of evil or deception or trickery. In verse 16, he was using sarcasm, irony, facetiousness)
Hi Ken,
You posted:
>> Sixth, I am sure that David Waltz can confirm the meaning of this passage as of what I am saying as true, as irony and that Paul is being facetious, as he has lots of good bible commentaries. ( I don’t have that many of my own, in fact I don’t have a good exegetical commentary on 2 Cor. )
What about David? Will you testify and confirm the truth of what I am saying?>>
Me: Yes, I can and will: you are absolutely correct. Rather than type up a number of quotes from the commentaries I own, I shall provide some online resources:
First: T & T Clark’s, The International Critical Commentary-A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
This link takes you to the entire series (OT and NT) via the Internet Archive.
Second: Specific link to: 2 Corinthians - Plummer
This link takes you to Plummer’s, 2 Corinthians in the above mentioned ICC series.
Third: Classic Bible Commentaries
This takes you to a site where you can access more than a ½ dozen commentaries.
Fourth: Specific link to Plummer, 2 Cor. 12:16 via Google - Page 363
And finally, for those who read Greek, Henry Alford’s, The Greek Testament (4 vols.) is also available via the Internet Archive HERE.
Grace and peace,
David
Thank you David for being so kind and confirming that!
Also:
2 Corinthians 4:2 (NASB)
2but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness
(به مکر رفتار نمی کنیم)or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
1 Peter 2:1 (NASB)
1Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
لهذا هر نوع کینه و مکر و ریا و حسد و هر قسم بد گویی را ترک کرده
The English word “deceit” here is translated makr in Farsi. (مکر) In 2 Cor. 4:2 it is the English word, “craftiness”.
By the way, thanks again David, - wow, that is amazing all the commentaries available on line.
What an amazing resource!
http://www.acommonword.net/2011/02/is-holy-spirit-trickster.html
David,
Would you say that the way the Grandverbalizer19 handles this issue here and mixes and twists and takes lots of other verses out of context and connects them together in a dis-jointed way (the way Irenaeus said that the Gnostics do to the Scriptures); would you say his handling of 2 Cor. 12:16 is honest and fair?
You also confirmed and proved he interpreted the verse wrong; yet he went on to twist it even more; just to be against me, it seems, and my pointing out that makr مکر as used of Allah in the Qur'an (3:54; 7:99; 8:30; 10:22) is negative and means tricky/scheming/deception/guile/lying.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord...
Ken finally some gratitude towards David...
I hope you are not upset Ken! I mean my word I have learned tons from you about approach to apologetic.
I have learned from reformed folks like you that if you...
a) ignore the context of passages, or even the context of which they were revealed...
b) show your opponent in the worse possible light, nothing good about their faith tradition...
c) make up my own translations (of which I am not qualified to do)....
d) out of a range of meanings pick the one's that will cast my opponents views in the worse possible light...
e) be inconsistent across the board...
d) make up should have could have would have been scenarios...
e) presuppositional, presuppostional presuppositional...
Thanks Ken! Interacting with you and James White, AnsweringMuslims, James White, and Sam Shamoun has sure helped to give me novel insights into the way that not only polemic but even apologetic should be done...
Due to this approach I get some very fascinating e-mails from Christians.
Here is looking at you kid :)
Grandverbalizer19 / Jonathan Dupree:
I sincerely believe that I dealt fairly with the context and sources; I think David's confirmation speaks volumes to this issue (and you should take down your whole article on the Holy Spirit as "trickster" - your Qur'an admits that Allah is the best trickster/deceiver - 3:54; 7:99; 8:30; 10:22); and it is you who takes things out of context and twists and connects to other verses and contexts; and you avoid the plain meanings of things.
You said, "that if you . . ."
"I have learned from reformed folks like you that if you..."
a,b,c,d,e . . .
where is the "then" ?
as far as "e", presupposition, is concerned, Christianity is on better footing that Islam, because it came first ( 600 years earlier) and the Qur'an teaches that it did and was true and Isa is Al Masih and the Injeel (Gospel/NT) is the word of God. (Surah 2:136; 5:47; 68; 10:94; 29:46). And it says several times, "no one can change the word of Allah".
Therefore, when we presuppose Christianity is true, the Qur'an also teaches this, therefore our presupposition is proven because the Qur'an also confirms this.
So, even the Qur'an, which comes more about 600 years later proves that our presupposition of Al Masih and the Injeel and Christianity is true.
So, as far as "e" is concerned, we have won that debate.
Here's looking at you kid! :)
you can hear the pin drop . . .
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord....
David here is a link to a video I thought you may enjoy when you have time...
http://vimeo.com/13738819
Post a Comment