Friday Fundamentals – Religion of Peace

Friday Fundamentals on a Saturday? Yes. Sorry.

I chat a bit with and about Muslims. Major point of discussion is the peaceful nature or otherwise of Islam. Not peaceful moments or movements with Islam and it’s most interesting history but the whole thing – a whole religion of peace.

Gordon Nickel, an exceptionally thoughtful and gentle Christian scholar on somethings Islamic had this to say in regard to this most sticky of questions. I appreciate the unfortunate truth about the arrow of Islamic history and the inconvenient direction it is pointing. Unfortunate for westerners who couldn’t possibly believe that the exotic other was anything other than a benign exotic other. Inconvenient to the same group because history undermines their wishful thinking and to the peace loving Muslims (there are millions of them) in the West who feel their religion is the most misunderstood religion on the planet, or at least with planetary aspirations.

Below is an excerpt from his essay at the National Post in Canada.

Find the whole the whole thing here – it is really worth it.

Conversely, warring Christians who accept the authority of the Gospel must deal with the apparent prohibition of violence in the teachings and life example of Jesus. This discussion has been going on among Christians at least since the Crusades, when critics were heard to say “that it is not in accordance with the Christian religion to shed blood in this way, even that of wicked infidels. For Christ did not act thus.

“Within the Christian community, one interpretive option is to read the Hebrew scriptures through the prism of the Gospel. According to the Gospel, Jesus said that he had come not to abrogate the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Jesus then immediately replaced the law of retaliation with non-resistance, and commanded love for enemies (Matthew 5:17, 38, 39, 44). This way of dealing with difficult materials raises many questions, but it has allowed Christians to pursue pacifism while holding to the authority of the Hebrew scriptures.

Unfortunately, the Islamic principle of abrogation runs in the opposite chronological direction in relation to violence. Because the commands to fight and kill in the Koran are considered by Muslims to be among the recitations made very late in the life of the prophet of Islam — at a time when his conquest of Arabia was almost complete — Muslims scholars have been inclined to read the peaceful texts as subordinate to the later ones.

In other words, Muslims seeking to find a peaceful message in the Koran must fight not only the plain meaning of the Koran’s text and the current fashion for militancy, but also the arrow of Muslim history.

Interpreting the words of Muslim scripture so that they pose no threat to peaceful coexistence with non-believers thus seems a large challenge. In view of the high stakes in the world today, however, it is certainly a challenge worth taking up. Otherwise, Canadian proponents of multiculturalism will have a harder time arguing that traditional Islam is just another peaceful element in Canada’s multicultural quilt.

– Gordon Nickel has a PhD in the earliest commentaries on the Koran and teaches in British Columbia.

‘FIGHT IN THE WAY OF ALLAH THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU’

What follows are selected Koranic references to fighting and killing infidels.

– Baqara (2):190 – “And fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah those who fight you.”

– Baqara (2):193 – “Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s”

– Baqara (2):244 – “So fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing.”

– Nisaa’ (4):76 – “Those who are believers fight (yuqaatiloona) in the way of Allah, and the unbelievers fight in the idols’ way. So fight (qaatiloo) the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble.”

– al-Anfaal (8):39 – “Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely.”

– al-Taubah (9):12 – “But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight (qaatiloo) the leaders of unbelief.”

– al-Taubah (9):29 – “Fight (qaatiloo) those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

– al-Taubah (9):123 – “O believers, fight (qaatiloo) the unbelievers (kuffaar) who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness (ghilza).”

– Baqara (2):191 – “And slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come upon them”

– Baqara (2):191 – “But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them (aqtuloohum) — such is the recompense of unbelievers.”

– Nisaa’ (4):89 – “then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you find them”

– Nisaa’ (4):91 – “If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come on them; against them we have given you a clear authority.”

– al-Taubah (9):5 – “Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay (aqtuloo) the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”

– Nisaa’ (4):74 – “So let them fight (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah who sell the present life for the world to come; and whosoever fights (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah and is slain, or conquers, we shall bring him a mighty wage.”

– Muhammad (47):4 – “When you meet the unbelievers, smite (darba) their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads.”

Compiled by Gordon Nickel

The Trinity on Thursday – Time, Trinity and Text

A common objection from some of my muslim friends is that the doctrine of the Trinity stems solely from one place in the Bible – 1 John 5:7.

In the King James version (KJV) of the Bible – there is a piece of text which is super trinitarian in its implications – except it shouldn’t be there. That’s why it is in the KJV as above but not in the New International Version (NIV) or most others for that matter. Many though not all Muslims think that this piece of text, this verse, is the sole reason Christians declare that God is Triune – Three co-eternal and co-equal persons in the one being of God. This is a strong objection.

Let’s think about that argument and it’s implications. It would mean that in the earliest centuries to support the errant teaching of the Trinity idea – someone inserted this bogus text into the Holy Bible. No insertion into the text and there would have been no Trinity and certainly no scriptural warrant for being trinitarian. But  the argument goes, it was inserted and that’s why we have the doctrine of the Trinity.

But this is simply not the case. The verse no where to be seen in any greek text, appeared in the body of the text no earlier than the 15th century and only as a margin note – a schema of understanding, a devotional piece some time before that. No where near the earliest centuries of the church. And the understanding of the divinity of the Son and the Spirt was emerging very early on in the christian community, being described at the end of the second century using the word Trinity. No where near the time of this textual insertion.

For source click the image

And another thing I am a trinitarian Christian because I seek to read the whole Bible fairly and carefully and I actually can’t say I have ever read this so called ‘only verse that leads to the Trinity understanding’. Go figure. No bogus verse and yet trinitarian.

See Dr. Dan Wallace’s scholarly treatment of this issue below or click here

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.”  ‑‑NET Bible

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.¹

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note.  Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.² The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity.  From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),³ Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,⁴ as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level.  As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.⁵ If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

---

¹1For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.

²Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here—and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.

³This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.

⁴That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.

⁵ Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts—and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR—has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism.

See also a follow up piece of Dr. Wallace’s here.

Friday Fundamentals – ISIS

If you wonder how ISIS can appear so serious about Islam?

If you wonder why ISIS kills so easily?

If you wonder why ISIS is killing more Muslims than Christians?

If you wonder why Muslims all over the western world condemn ISIS?

Read this article by Graeme Wood. I encourage you not to rail against it but to consider it. I don’t agree with all his conclusions but I have encountered similar Muslim ideology on the streets of London and actually meet Anjem Choudary in an east London coffee house. Met, said hello, shook hands and that was it. It’s a longer story but not as sinister as it sounds.

Over the years, a number, quite a number in fact, of Muslims doing street faith sharing, Dawah, calling people to Islam, in answer to questions about the killing or subjugation of non believers, always cited the lack of the rule of a Caliph, the existence of a Caliphate as the reason, Muslims generally lived at peace in the West. It was a matter of timing and they and I never expected that that would change in our lifetimes. Legitimate or not, this ISIS Caliphate is making waves. Let’s hope it won’t be a Tsunami. Before you say I am over reacting, I must say that I never thought we would see some of the things happening in European cities as have happened in the last year. I hope and pray for a de-escalation of this wave of one of the forms of Islam. But the time for being naive is coming to an end. ISIS is certainly a form of Islam, thankfully not the majority form. But it’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog that counts. That’s and unfortunate metaphor, considering Muhammad, the muslim’s role model, relationship to dogs.

I will post an excerpt and encourage you to read the whole thing. Remember reassurance and denial will only work if there is nothing to worry about.

Here is an excerpt ……

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet’s rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”

For the whole thing click here.

Friday Fundamentals – Dogma and Fear

Recently we have seen, both the threat of violence and the denunciation of that violence from the same source. Islamic believers. Different Islamic believers, I hasten to add but the common denominator is most definitely Islam.

The threat and/or manifestation of such violence and the correspondent denunciation of violence does two things for Islam. It expands the place of Islam at the table of civil discourse. This place is maintained because of the denouncement of violence and the general ‘religion of peace‘ vibe but this place is actually strengthened because of the threat or actualisation of violence.

I am not suggesting that the actors who violate and the actors who denounce the violation are in cahoots. I am just noting the obvious – Islam is in no way harmed and is in fact only helped by it having a minority – only numbering in the hundreds of millions as opposed to billions,  thus making it a minority  – who will threaten violence and a smaller number who will bring to fruition the rotten threat.

I have to say that what I am proposing only applies to western, liberal, secularising democracies. A government dominated by Hindu nationalists for example will tend to see the world of Islam differently and time will tell, though our confirmed liberals may never be able to tell for dogmatic reasons, how accurate the Hindu view is or isn’t.

So why does this strengthening of the place at the table occur? There are a couple of reasons. In the western, liberal, secularising democracies, the denunciation from some of the Islamic community is what those at the table want and need to hear. Need to hear – if they are to remain in any way confident about a possibly peaceful future. But also they are glad to hear and entertain it because to consider a lack of denunciation and it’s implications would be too nightmarish. Nightmarish – both in terms of future possible events but more immediately because it would challenge the very foundation of their non-negotiable assumptions about the world.

The liberal worldview posits the view that ‘others‘, like muslims, real muslims don’t and so the dogma goes, can’t actually pose any threat to anyone in anyway. The counterpart to this underestimation is the overestimation of who can be an actual threat – an enemy of the state. There is an enemy within – those still holding too firmly to the Judeo-Christian perspective. The Christians, real Christians, are alas not ‘other’ enough. Christianity is the mother, father, and forbear to the western, liberal, and now through mutation, secularising democracy. And like so many children in this age of individualism, the child has grown to hate it’s parent, it’s past, it’s heritage. Now the sole enemy is the dark shadow of the West’s previous self. At the table, the liberals look soley at their forebears with suspicion. Generally speaking, everyone else gets a free pass. There are no enemies without, only enemies within. The shameful, historical, hegemonic, did I say shameful, colonizers are the Christians. Muslims, gays and the new kids on the block, the transgenders are their victims. All new arrivals are innocent. Not by proof but by dogma.

For source – click image

The dogma of seeking to accept and value ‘the other’ without prejudice and critique is both an ideal of brilliance and strength but fast becoming the fatal flaw of the Western liberal society. Consequently, at the table of civil discourse, Islam, no matter what happens, good or bad, near or far, gets a free pass, gets to drape itself in the flag of victimhood and those at the table gather round it, puts their arm gingerly around its shoulder and gives a look of unqualified, supportive comfort.

I have no objection to some support and comfort and there is certainly much good that comes from the world of Islam; but it’s the unqualified, uncritical, liberally dogmatic approach to Islam that is objectionable, to my mind. Objectionable, unwise and almost certainly unsafe.

But let’s get back to the table. The assertion is made that the place of peaceful Muslims at the table of civil society is actually strengthened by there being Muslims that threaten, kill or just express support for threateners and killers. Dogma aside, what else is at play that strengthens Islam’s place at the table? Fear. Clear and simple.

Non-Muslims at the table are actually, counter-intuitively, frightened of Muslims in general, and especially of the killing kind. This is primarily because they can’t quite fully bring themselves to trust Islam; the religion which lies behind both types of Muslims frequently on the minds of western people – the good Muslims and the bad ones. The good ones thankfully outnumber the bad ones. By the way, all this good and bad descriptors are not necessarily Islamic descriptors but common sense desciptors. But these descriptors are fluid in regard to at least the persons being referred to. Sadly, there are now too many examples of those men and now women, from stable, well resourced, peaceful Muslim families and communities who have turned into the other kind of Muslim. The killing kind. Yes, thankfully a minority. But regrettably growing in numbers and now increasingly even challenging the peaceful Muslims to the point of death, to engage in war against the infidels – the un, non and dis-believers. The non-muslim is not even a muslim and then there’s the wrong kind of muslim – off with all their heads! Just like in the good old days.

Fear of any community or group can have the same effect as living, working or schooling with a bully. You give them a wide berth when you can and more room when you have to. They end up with getting their requirements met more easily and more often than others. Why is this? Because people are afraid of the consequences of not playing ball. Not playing ball, paying appropriate respect, not giving up what you thought was your reasonable entitlement, has consequences. Negative consequences.

Threats from one member of a family eases the way for other family members. Whether this is desired or not. Threats and violence even when denounced, still have a direct effect at the everyday table of generally peaceful people. There is a subconsious effect on all and a conscious effect on some at the table.

For source – click image

Even at the table of light entertainment and sarcastic, cynical comedy, comedians don’t mock Muhammad or Islam. This is never out of respect and always out of fear. The brave ones, as one might call them on a very generous day, even admit this. Jimmy Carr – equally foul-mouthed and foul-minded, a man who wastes his God-given talents of wit and charisma – says on stage that his will to live prevents him making any kind of jokes which offend the person of Muhammad and then shows a cartoon of Jesus being …. I can’t actually finish this sentence. It’s so offensive. Jesus is my saviour and the Son of God. Jimmy Carr’s Saviour and the Son of God.

But Jimmy doesn’t respect or fear me as a Christian. He’s right not to fear me. Actually he doesn’t respect Muslims either but he does fear them. Not just the killing kind. But the book burning kind. Jimmy sells books and DVDs by the truckload. He really doesn’t want to spend his summer holidays with Salman Rushdie.

So dogma and fear combine to give peaceful Muslims a place of disproportionate strength and influence at the table of civil discourse; whether they want it or not, whether they dispise or regret this mechanism or not. Many, I’m sure regret this mechanism. It may be unislamic according to their brand of Islam but it is beyond their control. It just happens. It cannot not happen. The liberal uncritical dogmaticians with one eye closed permanently to the bad and the other eye optimistically open to the good lean in to ensure for Islam a place at the table (that’s good) and then automatically, unknowingly, expand that space and increase the deference for Islam (that’s bad). Dogma may be foundational but it is fear that is formative.

For source – click image

Friday Fundamentals – Part 1

Offense. Free speech. Sensitivities. Critique. Limits. Respect.

For source – click image

There is a fine line between causing offense and intentionally causing offense. This fine line is not always recognised. Partly, because the incidental offence and intentional offense can seem very different things. But this is not so in practice and in partcular in practice over time. When you have caused offense once, usually incidentally – you did not mean to though you actual did – and you become aware of it, if you then choose to reiterate your propsotion or position and it causes offense again, you are then causing offense incidentally and intentionally to some degree. Because you are committed to your position and prize that and its free expression over the feelings of another being protected, you are now knowingly offending because you have to and choose to.

The broad gap between intention and non intention narrows and the fine line is now in place. Frequently, to those who are offended it as if it is not there at all. The distinctions are of no importance. You had a chance not to offend, perhaps by remaining silent or by changing your position but you didn’t. You failed to comply with anothers needs or demands. You cause offence knowingly (intentionally) because you still hold and re-state your position (incidental effect).

And so we see this tension played out in the world today – propositions portrayed (cartoons), offense caused, and cries of foul play, disrespect, dishonour and death can follow. That trajectory is not guaranteed. Thankfully, most of the offended (in the west)  just feel very hurt and outraged and hope compliance with their needs to become someone elses, even everyone elses priority. Precious few of the offended (in the west) reign death over the populace.

Reposition this last set of statements outside the west to somewhere like the middle east or generally any country where Islamic ideology and religion hold great sway and we see the hurt and outrage expressed much more potently resulting in a thousand ‘deaths’. Like a thousand cuts, each death looks different from another. Harassment, imprisonment, lashes, false or even truthful claims of blasphemy can lead to, you’ve guessed it, actual death. Be it hanging or be it beheading.

The level of moderation called for and displayed here in the west by the offended, should be applauded I guess – it certainly should not be taken for granted. It’s ironic  to see the self described religion of peace calling its faithful not to be violent in the face of offense. I guess it should rebrand itself the ‘religion of peace if things are going our way’. Certainly more honest but less attractive when sloganeering. But these calls for moderation are rarely seen in the Islamic-ish world. Ish is a word we use particularly in London to say kind of. For example, I had a friend who came from a kind of Amish background, so he was in fact Amish-ish. I am using the term Islamic-ish world because I have been educated so many times by thoughtful muslims that those countries where chaos and cruelty seems to rise up so quickly and engulf, swallow and literally destroy minority non muslim people and more recently people groups are not actually Islamic – or even Islamic-ish. “That person was not acting islamic / that group was not acting islamic / that country was not being islamic”. Islam gets to play the get out of jail free card again and again and again and ……

One is always asked to trust and believe that the Islamic vision, the western born or based muslim  desires and plans for, here in the UK for example, will look nothing like it looks in the muslim majority regions of the world. The non muslims here will be treated well, protected by and through Sharia; unlike the experience of non muslims in majority muslim countries. Being asked to trust this is a very big ask indeed. It seems clear that where big groups of muslim people get big power, the less powerful become the almost powerless, sometimes quickly but always certainly, over time.

What occurs in the muslim majority countries will occur here if the conditions allow it. How could it not? The primary condition is numbers. Simply numbers. Numbers and allegiance rule. Numbers and allegiance are ruling in France today – the secular free speech ideology currently reigns but what about tomorrow? Demography dictates destiny. Muslims in a very wonderful way think in spans of centuries. It matters little if the numbers in France are inadequate to influence or force sharia type compliance right now. The hope and intention for muslim leadership is that it will one day. The average muslim may not be so aware of this but it’s so obvious. All religions who draw their offspring immediately into their religion have a vested interest in ensuring the proliferation of offspring. Islam anyone? Roman Catholicism anyone?

As the numbers grow the powerful and abrasive rise and use fear, and force when fear fails, to ensure compliance – firstly within the faith community and then when the numbers are right, throughout the non-faith community.

Wherever the numbers are up, power is sought, held and used. And suffering follows. Proportionate to where one stands in relation to the ideology in power, is the harm that will befall them. Close and safe. Far and dangerous. No protection just punishment.

If you want to know what a western majority muslim country will look like for non muslims 20 years into its emergence – think Pakistan, think even Saudi. Sure it will be so different but it will be so terrible for the infidel. That’s you and me, probably. It’s supposed to be.

I am not trying to scare monger – at least not intentionally. Perhaps it’s incidental. People die everyday due to the emerging or some might say re-emerging Islamic desire to take hold, take power and takeover. Muslims are often the greatest victims in terms of numbers – for not being the right kind of muslim – the super compliant kind or the correct tribal kind. Next, it’s the non muslims – Christians and others. Particulary spiteful is the response to the most vulnerable of minorities,  the apostate – the leaver – of Islam. Now a Christian or a buddhist or an atheist. Now an embarrassment, a disgrace, a dishonour and invariably a death.

When you think about Islam – remember your lovely neighbour, the lovely shopkeeper, the lovely doctor but also remember to think globally and historically. Your lovely neighbour, shopkeeper and doctor will also have to think globally and historically at some stage, whether they want to or not. Someone, a particular type of muslim, is going to make them. Actually, they are currently seeking to make them. The challenges from the world’s most contradictory and conflicted religion are coming to all of us – muslims and infidels. We may just be able to discern this, but so many of our dear muslim friends seem incapable of comprehending that this is even possible. Not with Islam. Couldn’t be. Ce n’est pas possible. Full circle.

Text Tuesday – Bible & Qur’an

I had the privilege of watching a live stream of the fascinating debate between Dr. Shabir Ali and Jay Smith – held in Toronto Canada last week. Fascinating because of the aterial questioning the widespread claims of muslims that the Qur’an was sent down, is unchanged and that the Qur’an of today is the Qur’an of yesterday.

Dr. Ali shocked us all by sidestepping the material and it could be said appeared to concede a number of matters rasied by Jay Smith and spent a huge amount of his main presentation time talking about the extraordinary numerology associated with the Qur’an or at least a particular version/reading of it.

I hope to link to it soon so you can peruse. In the meantime here is an argument that has some weight to it. I might have made some points differently but none the less there are some good questions here that require answering.

Text Tuesday – Ten problematic red letters

For source of image – click it

 There is a method of marking out Jesus’ words in Bible publications. They are printed in red. This method is only sometimes used. On the positive side, it makes his words easier to spot and quite convenient when scanning through a page quickly. However it has its downsides. Some chrsitians have begun to elevate these red letter words above the black letter words. We can then lose context and fail to see the rest of scripture as of equal value.

I attended an exciting evening of friendly christian-muslim discussion and debate in London last night. One of the thoughts that came out from the muslim perspective was a general though not complete acceptance of the red letter words of Jesus in the Gospels. Many though not all. This is not too surpirsing because many of the sayings and teachings of Jesus would be happily endorsed by almost every religious group in the world. His teachings on love, justice, sacrifice and service are unparraleled but yet universal. Hence their attractiveness. So I understand that my muslim friends (like Hindus and Buddhists) would be very accepting of much but not all of the actual spoken words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels.

But I took a few minutes today to just scan through one of the gospels – Matthew – and see a few of the things my muslim friends ceratinly could not accept because of a message from 600 years after Jesus that they have an allegiance to. I think I can hear a couple of muslim friends saying “no problem” to one or two of these. But an honest reading and a sense of their meaning in the original context should deflate any such aspirations. But I do accept them because long before an ostensibly good man in a cave brought to those outside the cave, a message so contrary to Christianity, the black letters and the red letters of the Gospels were part of the literature of the world – that’s the parts that the good man in the cave would like and those he wouldn’t. I must accept them all.

10 problematic statements of Jesus (red letter) for our muslim friends:

1.  “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matthew 11:27
   
2.  Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? ⁶ I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. ⁷ If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’^[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. ⁸ For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:5-8
   
3. He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ⁴¹ The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. ⁴² The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here. Matthew 12:39-42
4. “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. ⁴² They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear. Matthew 13:40-43
   
5. Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. ¹¹ What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” Matthew 15:10
6. The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. ²³ They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life. Matthew 17:22-23
7. We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death ¹⁹ and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life! Matthew 20:18-19
   
8. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28
9.  But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee. Matthew 26:32
10. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:18-20

Letter from America

                                 Actually it arrived one night in July 2014

This is a reblog of a sad timely post by Tim Keesee over at Desiring God.

Background: The latest headline-making iteration of Islamic terror is the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which split with Al-Qaeda in 2010 because (believe it or not) Al-Qaeda was too timid in their use of violence and too slow in implementing a trans-national Islamic state known as a Caliphate (from the Arabic for “succession”). Considered the successor to the Prophet Mohammed, the Caliph is the political and spiritual leader of the world’s one billion Sunni Muslims (at least in theory). The ISIS commander, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, has declared himself to be the Caliph. Al-Baghdadi and his jihadists have startled the world with the swiftness of their conquests in Iraq and their brutal effort to obliterate the Christian communities from the region. Their stronghold is now Mosul, ancient Nineveh, the 2nd largest city in Iraq. Despite his rapid rise, there are realities that Mr. al-Baghdadi and his followers need to know. Christians should remember these, too.

Mr. Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi
Caliph
Mosul, Iraq

Dear Mr. al-Baghdadi,

Recently, you publicly presented yourself as the Caliph, the leader of a new order for the Islamic world. In your inaugural sermon at the mosque in Mosul near the ruins of Nineveh, you said, “If you see me on the right path, help me. If you see me on the wrong path, advise me and halt me.” I’ve given that offer some thought and wanted to follow up with you.

Your reputation for unbridled terror has contributed to battlefield success and dramatic territorial gains in Syria and Iraq. As a result, tens of thousands of Christians have suffered at your hands. Those who could not flee your fury have been forced into dhimmitude. Others have been beheaded, some even crucified — making a mockery of their agony and making a mockery of Jesus the Messiah.

I think it’s best that you know that you will not succeed. You and your Caliphate are destined for failure. Of course, all empires, caliphates, and reigns of terror eventually come to an end, but something else is happening — another kind of failure in your command over the Islamic world. It’s that Jesus Christ is building his Church, and he said that “even the gates of hell” (which sounds a lot like Mosul right now) cannot stop its advance.

Christ is building the Church by gathering worshipers to himself from every tribe and language and people and nation — and that includes many, many among your subjects. From North Africa to Indonesia — and at many points in between — I’ve spoken with a number of formerly committed Muslims who are now joyful Christians. Several of your erstwhile subjects told me that Islamic terror in the name of Allah was what broke their faith in the only religion they had ever known. Having rejected Islam in their heart, when they heard the gospel, they believed! They told me that the September 11th attack — what your mentor (the late Osama bin Laden) did — first opened their hearts to the love and grace that is in Jesus alone. And so, Osama bin Laden and his kind have been unwitting agents in the gospel’s advance.

That’s why I said you can’t win. The gospel will continue to be heard in more and more places in your realm because our King will continue to send his servants there. These are men and women who are willing to die, but not like the suicide bombers that you use so often. The King’s servants are not bringing death; they are bringing life. As they go, they will risk everything, driven not by hate, as your servants are, but by the love Jesus demonstrated by dying for us.

Some days ago, your sledgehammer-swinging and explosive-detonating disciples destroyed the tomb of the prophet Jonah. The God of Jonah, whose name was first proclaimed there in Nineveh by Jonah, is nothing like the god you claim to kill for. Jonah’s God, the only God, showed grace to his enemies in Nineveh. God’s mercy would later reach its greatest, deepest, widest expression in his Son Jesus Christ, whose death and resurrection forever secured life for all who come to him — even you, if you would come.

May the life-giving Christ, the God of Jonah, have mercy on your people once again. May they turn to him and live. May their ransomed voices shout with Jonah, “Salvation belongs to the Lord!”

Sincerely,

Tim

Friday Frivolity – laugh but we need to weep

In spite of it being a terrible day for Christians as well as other tiny religions and sects in Iraq, I am posting a Frivolous Friday post.

But much like the picture – the warnings are in place but we still teeter towards complete destruction – ignoring the signs. May the God of all the world have mercy on us all.

This is the scariest sign on the beautiful south west coast of Wales (UK).

Family & friends in Wales August 2014

The news says that ISIS or the Caliphate are sweeping through the villages with a special offer – Convert or Die! Where does this come from? This has never happened in history before in the middle east – has it? The killing, the beheading, the ruling over, the special offer – where does all this come from? This has never happened in history before in the middle east – has it?

 

Simple V Complex: Ramadan Reflections

Many lovely muslims say to me, a Christian, your beliefs about God are complex. Ours are simple. Therefore ours must be true.

I say to the lovely muslim “must be – how so?”

They profer – God would not give us something complex to understand about himself when we would struggle to understand it. He would give us something simple so it could be understood.

This is an attractive piece of reasoning based on the idea that God would be committed to presenting simple things about himself so that we would understand them.

But I am not so sure. Surely God would and does reveal truth to us – in his mercy and condescension toward his creatures. If God is complex, high above us, surely we might encounter something of that in his presentation of Himself to us.

Coming back to the idea that Simple is obviously truer than complex, I would venture that the simple understanding of the God as put forward in Islam is not necessarily true simply based on that idea. I find the Buddhist notion of One (everything is one, there is no divisibility – all divisibility is but an illusion – all is One) to be immensely attractice and immensely simple. The most simple idea in metaphysics that there is. But I actually don’t believe it is true. And complexity versus simplicity does not play a part at all in my judgement of Buddhism versus Christianity (versus Islam). But for the Muslim who insists I should abandon my One God who is Three (Complex) for their One God who is One (simpler) simply based on those grounds needs to be consistent and surrender to buddhistic One (simplest of all).

I am not advocating that Muslims renounce Islam and become Buddhists. What a waste of renouncement that would be. As a christian of course I want lovely muslims (and the unlovely ones too) to renounce Islam and embrace the Jesus of the New Testament – the Saviour & LORD. (He actually came to save the unlovely and rebuke the so called lovely). But some muslims and many particularly converts to Islam cite this reduced complexity of ideas about God as a major factor in their conversion. It is interesting that it becomes for many a master concept, a deal breaker – worth using emphatically to persuade others to embrace Islam. As a master concept it needs to carry them further – to Buddhism. If it doesn’t then it needs to fadeaway and become an incidental finding on the road having embraced a particular worldview. But for many it is more than this – not just something spotted on the arrival at a destination but a driver directing some towards Islam. I simply say that as a driver it’s work is unfinished when you arrive at Islamville. Buddhaville is 40 clicks down the road and is the simplest destination of all.

So why am I not a buddhist? Because as I journey through life I have found myself arriving at the God who is Three (One God, eternally existing as Father, Son and Spirit) not because I crave simplicity or complexity for that matter but truth. It may turn out to be untrue. But that won’t be because of it’s complexity.

I hope to say something about the proposition that Islam is simple and Christianity is complex another time but for now this has been another Ramadan Reflection.

Peace and blessing of Christ be upon you and your family.

Things I like about Islam – Ramadan Reflections

1. Beards [I have a beard]
2. Consciousness about external modesty [I benefit from modesty in others]
3. Gender roles are very clear [I am unclear about what the biblical gender roles are & how to negotiate them]
4. Muslims seem pretty serious about Islam [I yearn for more seriousness in Christians]
5. Long flowing robes [I fancy a bit of long flowing robe wearing, especially in summer]
6. The faith does not easily lend itself to being an added extra in western life [Christianity does appear to – even if it actually doesn’t and can’t]
7. Life does seem to be lived out corporatively to quite an extent – pray together, fast together [I would like more of that]
8. The brand of Islam is masculine in the public square [Christianity less so]
9. Unashamed conciousness about brotherhood and sisterhood [calling another christian ‘brother’ seems to embarrass – often them and sometimes me]
10. Muslim actually get all sorts of free passes in western life – at work and at play [Christians are becoming more despised – like a when a child comes to hate it’s mother – it’s history – I desire free passes – regrettably]
11. Strong emphasis on the Creator/creature distinction [many Christians have kind of forgotten this in a real and affecting sense]
12. The control and effective policing of external life appeals to me [on my worst days]
13. It has been influenced greatly by the strongest virtues of Christianity [Christianity is now being influenced by the strongest virtues of secular materialism – the culture]
14. The understanding of who God is is harder to mess around with [Christians are going through a long phase of re-imaging God in their own image and now re-imaging scripture in cultures image]
15. Emphasis on family is strong [now less so for Christians]
16. Most resources go on helping the muslim community which strengthens the community considerably. [Christians following Christ’s example of superabundant generosity for the outsider are more promiscious in scattering their resources, helping those outside the community of faith to the glory of God in Christ Jesus]. This weakens the christian church in a spiritually bankrupt sense. Good thing.
17. It is winning some of the numbers games [Jesus (my Lord, Master, Saviour & brother) was never a numbers person – he said narrow is the gate and few will come through it – many called but few chosen].
18. Is so poorly understood by the western liberal media that a quick slight of hand from a muslim ‘talking head’ seems to cause the western journalist to exclaim “well folks, there you have it – Islam itself is great and innocent of all charges” [on my worst days I desire that kind of power over the media and that kind of idiocy from them].
19. I like all the talk about honour [but not what the honour doctrines given full life within a believer can lead to. Can lead to death – the death of some one else – obviously the one who dishonoured].
20. The charismatic power and sheer showmanship of quoting your precious text in another and rarely understood language by the hearer, before a translation to English. [Christianity has long lost this quality of quaint bamboozleoscity (it’s a word) which is increasingly important in the West where the new is good, the old is bad, the known is toxic and the ‘other’ or unknown is exotic].
21. The corporate & physical drama expressed during prayer [as a former Roman Catholic & Pentecostal I retain some physical drama in prayer but when expressed  corporatively not so much]
22. It is a religion based on Power [for the individual the central nexus is submission but for the Islamic community the central nexus is power – the old dead sinner in me, like a zombie walker cries out daily “get more power”].
23. It’s a religion with an enormous and ‘flesh’ appealing system – there is a system of piety and good deeds (the halals) – if you do them you’re good with God – paradise bound. But it is of course the religious system of Schrodinger’s cat. As God cannot be bound by any system even one he designs and implements – God can say ‘No Cigar’ to the best of mankind (who would obviously be the best of the muslims). So like the religion of Schrodinger’s cat, there is a system to follow but it maybe for you, the follower, as if no system existed at all. System existing and not existing all at the same time. Like that darn cat. Who can tell whether it is really there at all. A system that is truely there must be systematic in it’s outcomes. Reliable. Trustworthy to deliver. The God of Islam is not systematic in his outcomes – or relating to your outcome as you engage with the system – through the halals and the harams. Nothing commits this God – not even himself. Not even his own system. [On my bad days I seek a system – even such a flawed system. But on my even worse days I am so glad there is no system, just the grace and forgiveness of the Holy and wrathful God of the Bible offered to all sinful mankind through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, his eternal Son; during what can only be described as this season of the gospel. This season spans from the moment of the resurrected Christ’s return to the right hand of his eternal Father until his second coming. Or for an individual perspective – that season offering grace, forgiveness and amnesty lasts for you from now until the day of your death and no longer than that].
24. It has produced people who seem better than the sum of its parts. Some wonderful people.
25. Did I mention the beards?

Jesus the Hungry – Ramadan Reflections

Lovely muslims say to me, a christian ….

Jesus could not be God – he hungered, ate – game over!

I say to lovely muslims that I, a christian

expect to see Jesus eating and hungering;

because Jesus on earth was the eternal Word of God – made flesh.

Flesh – real flesh – not fake flesh – not pretend flesh;

real eating – real hungering.

That is what incarnation (Word made flesh) means; what one expects with incarnation.

Jesus – God but not solely God

Jesus – man but not solely man.

Jesus – God and man.

Read the scriptures – all of them – not just the ‘Jesus eats! Game Over’ ones.

So when the lovely muslim person says to me, “Jesus ate, he was hungry”, said muslim undoubtedly has an expectation of a light bulb moment for me. There certainly is one – but not the one he expects.

The lightbulb moment for me is the sudden awareness that although this muslim knows I am a christian, he clearly does not know what christians understand our scriptures to say and what we therefore believe.

The lightbulb moment is seeing that the lovely muslim is putting 6th century islamic requirements on the first century Jesus and our scriptures.

We have work to do to understand one another and have a productive chat, this lovely muslim and me.

Gospel according to John – Chapter 1 – Verses 1 to 5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Gospel according to John – Chapter 1 – Verse 14

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus the Ultimate – Ramadan Reflections

Jesus the ultimate one who submits – he submitted to his eternal heavenly Father

Jesus the ultimate one who fasts – he fasted – laid aside his divine privileges to be rough and ready in the neighbourhood with us & for us

Jesus the ultimate breaking of the fast – arose after three days in death to break the fast of desolation and begin a new kind of life for those who would become his brothers

Jesus the ultimate one to pray behind – he said ‘pray like this “our Father in heaven …” ‘

Jesus the ultimate call to prayer – ‘he said “come unto me …” ‘

Jesus the ultimate alms – he is the embodied kindness of the Father to the poor and sin sick of this world

Jesus the ultimate striver for the Father’s glory – resists the way of Satan in the wilderness and in the garden

Jesus the ultimate one on pilgrimage – journeys from eternity into time to raise a band of brothers and sisters under his banner of grace

Jesus the ultimate religion of peace – opposites are reconciled in his crucified body

Jesus the ultimate brother – to all brothers and sisters adopted by his Father through the Holy Spirit

Jesus the ultimate in resurrection – first over a new creation

Jesus the ultimate one over all the angels

Jesus the ultimate advocate for repentant and believing sinners on the day of judgement

Jesus the ultimate eternal word of God – enfleshed

Jesus the Ultimate

Why is Islam on my news programme every night?

Is it because of Islamophobia or Islam? Is someone trying to show Islam in a bad light or is Islam showing itself in a bad light?

This is one of the most important questions of the age. If it’s because of Islamophobia, then it’s nothing to do with Islam (apparently). If it is because of Islam, then it simply actually can’t be because of Islam and someone’s just being islamophobic after all.

That’s they way the narrative too often goes. Islam good. Islam can’t be bad. Islam good. All good – no bad in it at all. And any criticism of Islam is (you guessed it) islamophobic.

But that would kind of mean Islam is islamophobic in some weird but real sense. Because Islam does seem to do, a pretty good or bad job depending on your perspective, of showing Islam (itself) in a bad light. Don’t take my word for it – turn on the news programme every night at my house.

When someone who is claiming to be a very serious Muslim, citing islamic motivations, imperatives, and texts does a pretty awful thing, we are told it has nothing to do with Islam. Huh. Nothing? Seriously? Nothing at all? Not even just a little bit. But he – the guy that did the bad thing and thousands and sometimes millions of other Muslims think it has something to do with Islam. That’s why he did it and they support him for it. So a muslim can think it is nothing to do with Islam and another muslim can think it is to do with Islam but I cannot think it is anything to do with Islam. I am simply not allowed to do that. Many muslims say I can’t think or say that – they quickly label me islamophobic. And the liberal media says the same thing –  not because they are muslims because being liberals wouldn’t go so well for them in any regard – but because of their a priori committment to the philosophy that bad things could never be specifically attributable to a particular ideology particularly one with non-western stripes. Ideology good – sometimes bad person misinterpret ideology – he bad, ideology always good. There is one general exception and that’s those Christians – they bad blood, with bad blood ideology.

So why is Islam on my news programme every night. It’s a tricky question with a tricky answer. How you answer or even get to answer this question will tell us a lot about the future world we will live in. How you get to answer is important because the charge, slur and whip of islamophobia will try to dictate if and how you get to answer. The ‘how’ will involve courage on your part if you are going to be in any way critical. Islam does not appear to sit well in a world of appraisal, weighing and critique.

I have had some interesting conversations with muslims who believe in free speech so long as no one speaks freely. This conversation occurs without any sense of irony. Many muslims have imbibed the non islamic mantra of free speech as exactly that – something spoken of – but without any really meaning. You can speak freely but you mustn’t say x, y, or z. Oh! so not free speech then. Limited restrictive speech. I wish you would call it that – you are confusing non muslims when you say you believe in it when you don’t. But actually maybe you are being as consistent as you can be (but not actually very consistent) because you think we mean the same thing as you when we talk of free speech. Like we don’t really mean it – it’s just something you say. If that’s the case, well then can I apologise to you if you are a muslim with ideas of ‘not really free speech’ free speech. We should have been clearer.

I believe in free speech. I think I know what that means. You may say anything – no matter how offensive it is and who it offends. I do not want the law to restrict you. When Christ returns – he will come with other authority in this regard and he will deal with the free speech issue as he sees fit. In the meantime the best way for me to protect my freedom to share the gospel through speech is to protect all peoples freedom to say whatever they want, even if the gospel and the God of the gospel are defamed.

Why is Islam on my news programme every night. It’s obvious. It’s because of Islam silly.

Apostle Paul & Apostle Muhammad – Similarities & Differences

1. both had beards
2. both wore sandals (or similar)
3. both claimed to have received a revelation
4. both point to another as the object of worship
5. both responsible for ‘holy’ text
6. both understood by many
7. both misunderstood by many
8. both had serious thoughts about women
   1. Paul thought they had certain roles & offices available to them
   2. Muhammad received the revelation that more than 3 should be available to him
9. both were really important in the growth and formation of a world religion
10. both had interesting gifts in knowledge and education
    1. Paul was an amazing writer and remarkably clever
    2. Muhammad was apparently illiterate but obviously had been exposed to other peoples knowledge – he too was remarkably clever
11. both were amazing but flawed leaders
12. both were responsible for the death of people who didn’t believe as they did
    1. Paul bore this responsibility before the revelation
    2. Muhammad bore this responsibility after the revelation
13. both had a belief in a Jesus figure
14. Paul encountered Jesus on a road within 6 years of Jesus’ death and resurrection
15. Muhammad heard about ‘Jesus’ in a cave 600 years after Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead
16. on the road – Paul was asked by Jesus “Why are you persecuting me?”
17. in the cave – Muhammad was informed ‘Jesus’ didn’t even die – 600 years after the fact
18. Paul, after the revelation began to preach that Jesus was the Son of God
19. Muhammad, after the revelation began to teach that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God
20. Paul is accused of inventing a religion – Christianity
21. Muhammad’s words about Allah making it only look like Jesus died, if true, seems like it would have lead to the invention of a religion – Christianity
22. both were questioned about their authority after the revelation
    1. Paul used sarcasm and self deprecation
    2. Muhammad used persuasion, fear of hell fire and the sword
23. Paul before his revelation thought the idea of a defeated, crucified messenger of God scandalous
24. Muhammad after his revelation thought the idea of a defeated, crucified messenger of God scandalous
25. Paul came to realise that God’s strength is revealed in the weakness of men
26. Muhammad came to realise that God’s strength is revealed in the strength of men
27. the core of Paul’s faith is belief in God and his divine Messiah Jesus
28. the core of Muhammad’s faith is belief in Allah and his prophet Muhammad
29. Paul – reflecting on his future death, said “to be absent from the body was to be with the LORD”
30. Muhammad, reflecting on his future death, was unsure if he would escape the hell fire
31. the writings of Paul in many ways explain to the world what Christ has achieved and what a christian looks like and lives like
32. the writings about Muhammad in every way tells the world how to live – from how and when and where to pray, to how to go to the toilet
33. Paul called Christians to imitate him – in a Christ oriented life – not copy his everyday  actions
34. Muhammad called Muslims to imitate him – in an Allah oriented life and copy his everyday actions
35. Paul sang songs of worship to the LORD
36. Muhammad – not so much
37. Christian tradition says Paul was beheaded
38. Islamic tradition says Muhammad appointed a judge who beheaded a great great number of enemies
39. Paul was killed by Nero – possibly – probably
40. Muhammad was killed by a young woman – possibly – probably
41. Paul patently knew indepth the Jewish scriptures – this is evident from his writings
42. Muhammad patently knew a very limited amount of the Jewish scriptures – this is evident from the Qu’ran
43. the scriptures that Paul wrote reflect his thoughts, gifts and are superintended by God
44. the ‘scriptures’ that Muhammad received do not reflect his thoughts, gifts and are superprovided by God
45. when Paul quoted pagan ideas in his writings he named them as such
46. when Muhammad received mythological stories in the quranic revelation they are not named as such
47. Paul said Satan hindered him from visiting Thessalonica
48. Muhammad said Satan fooled him with some verses which he initially thought were from God
49. Paul is much loved by Christians
50. Muhammad is adored by Muslims

Was Jesus Crucified? Muslims think not – 600 years after the fact

Hosting this timely debate from the Muslim Debate Initiative – Was Jesus Crucified? [Spills over into the resurrection – yes? no?]. With James White vs Sami Zaatari.

Good debate. All the classic defenses and challenges are touched on and there is a lot to learn. Good to see a proper debate forum being followed. Recommended for when you’re doing the washing up. That’s when I do most of my listening. No dishwasher! Why?????

Image source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9785535/Washing-up-for-the-Queen-Thats-mans-work.html

 

 

Elvis had left the building. What would Jesus have done?

Elvis had left the building. What would Jesus have done? Short answer. I have some idea.

Let’s go back a bit first. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit in on a muslim christian discussion evening here in the UK. I have been to this particular series of gatherings before. They are lively, energising, and at times somewhat scary affairs. This one was the scariest by far but not in connection with the subject of this blog post. What was much more interesting was the way a christian and a muslim handled an exchange of words and emotion.

Image source: click image

At the Q&A time of the evening, both speakers having delivered their respective presentations, a christian brother took the opportunity to ask a question. The question would turn out to be a very important question. Great. The question would get lost in a moment of heat and pain. Not so great.

The christian brother was from Pakistan, not an easy place to be a christian believer these days. The evening discussion was about Peace – a perspective from Islam and Christianity. The Iman used the majority of his presentation time to present an elaboration of the external greetings of Islam – the ‘salaams’ (peace greetings) and how they are so integral to Islamic thought and the practice of every muslim.

Very interesting but a little thin to my christian heart and consciousness. He included very briefly a number of more important points about the deeper aspects of peace. I say more important because in my opinion they were far more significant. But perhaps not in his opinion. Otherwise he might have and maybe should have given more time to them. However I have to say in fairness to this dear Iman, he is not the most direct or forceful kind of communicator. He frequently appears to squander his time on background or at least secondary issues. So the ultimate shape of his Peace presentation was perhaps more a continuation of this personal limitation or style rather than there being little to say on the more substantial aspects of peace from an islamic point of view.

Notably, he did take a moment to say that in a real sense Islam is not a religion of Peace. He had obviously not been ‘madrass’ed’ (schooled) by George W. Bush, Tony Blair or other such ‘Islamic scholars’ of the recent age. I appreciated this honest statement and look forward to an elaboration of this in due time. He actually proposed that the subject of War be a topic for another evening. That could be interesting.

http://peacemonitor.org/?p=427

Anyway, towards the end of the night, the pakistani christian during his Q to the Iman’s A,  asked a question about the place of salaams (peace greetings) in engagement with non-muslims. The Iman indicated that there was some discussion within Islamic authorities and scholarship around whether the traditional muslim greeting ‘As-salam alaykum’ should be extended to non-muslims. He concluded that there was only minimal support for it. Reciprocating that greeting when extended first from the non-muslim is another and more positive matter altogether. It’s interesting, I just googled the phrase ‘muslim greeting’ to ensure I got the spelling correct for this post and the internet is full of this very discussion – the yes’ and the no’s of whether a muslim should and can initiate this greeting to a non muslim. (How do you spell the plural of no? What is the plural of no?)

From Mecca to Calvary – the story of God being kind to Thabiti Anyabwile

This brother is an incredible blessing to me though I have yet to meet him. His is a testimony to the gracious, saving hand of God in Christ. He is my go-to person when I need to think carefully and deeply on matters related to race, church life (commitment and discipline) and Christ honoring manhood.

click on picture to hear Thabiti’s journey from Islam to Christ

Click the book to go to an excellent written interview with Trevin Wax about Thabiti’s book – the Gospel for Muslims

Thabiti blogs at Pure Church – click Pure to find.

Click to link to Pure Church blog

Newsflash: Sermon wakes christian from slumber – watch, wake & wise up

Here is a wonderful life shaking sermon from a brother (Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile whom I would love to have coffee with – I would be the one drinking tea). Thabiti has a careful mind, a big heart, measured wisdom and a knack for keeping the gospel and those who need it, front and centre. It builds from mind to heart. Stay with it.

Thinking for the Sake of Global Faithfulness: Confronting Islam with the Mind of Christ

 

You can get the audio download here for your portable device.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/thinking-for-the-sake-of-global-faithfulness-confronting-islam-with-the-mind-of-christ#/listen/full

Thabiti blogs at Pure Church (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/) and The LORD uses his careful thinking and reflections to keep assaulting the subtle racist within. Do yourself a favour and check his blog out regularly.