Muslims often claim that their religion only allows violence when Islam is being threatened. It is important to note, however, that, as far as Islam is concerned, a “threat” doesn’t need to be an invading army. Insults against Muhammad, criticisms against Islam, hindering the preaching of Islam—all of this qualifies as an attack against Islam, and Muslims are called upon to react violently.
Interestingly enough, Bassam has admitted some of this in his comments. Responding to a question about Muslims invading foreign lands, Bassam said:
“As for invasions by islamic armies. They invaded lands whose rulers were oppressing them. They invaded lands that put a barrier between the preaching of Islam to the people, its like putting a barrier between the doctor and patient.”
So according to Bassam, it is okay for Muslims to invade a land (i.e. to use violence), if the country is interfering with the preaching of Islam. I pointed out to Bassam that, if Christians used his line of reasoning, they could invade
Bassam’s response was amazingly accurate and insightful. He said:
“Well, no it wouldn't be right for you because your religion does not teach that this is something that you should do if such a situation arises. Our religion does. Therefore, it would be wrong for you since your religion doesn't teach it and your doing this from your own line of reasoning.”
As Sunil pointed out, Bassam has admitted that, while Islam allows violence in such a situation, Christianity does not. And it is amazing to read such an honest reply. Notice what Bassam has acknowledged here. If a country refuses to allow Muslim preachers to enter the land and preach to non-Muslims, followers of Muhammad are called upon to declare war and conquer the land! This can hardly be viewed as a defensive war.
My point here is simply that when Muslims claim that they may only kill in self-defense, their definition of “self-defense” is much broader than people might expect. Any interference with the message of Islam, whether the offenders have used physical force or not, is grounds for violence. I have to agree with Bassam, however, that Christians may not resort to such tactics.
9 comments:
Dear David
I remeber telling you the following in one of my posts...
But do me a favor before you post something. Always ask your self “What am I trying to prove by posting this argument? Is my argument providing objective evidence or is it only an emotional argument expressing something that doesn’t appeal to me?”
Now what is David trying to prove by this post? Is he only trying to prove that some Muslims are wrong when they say that Jihad is only in self defense? Or does he think that this is evidence against Islam?
If he is trying to prove the first assertion then David may be right. Many Muslims may think that Jihad is only permissible if oneself is being attacked, however you can also wage Jihad against those people who are oppressing others even though they are not oppressing you. So Muslims viewed this in two different ways...
1) Some have viewed this as OFFENSIVE JIHAD against oppression.
2) Others have still viewed this as self defense since you are doing this to defend others and Islam.
I tend to agree more with the first option and that is offensive against oppression just as the police might be offensive against criminals.
Now if David somehow thinks that he formed a valid argument against the credibility of Islam then he has left me clueless.
What evidence does David have that this is wrong? Isn't the entire earth God's land and God has every right to ensure that His message is sent across the world and that if there were those that stood in the way then they should be eliminated? Isn't possible or likely? Can we prove that this is not from God simply because we don't like the idea or that it doesn't appeal to us? No, I don't think so.
Plus, don't Christians believe that EVERYONE who does not receive Jesus as Lord and savior will go to hell? Therefore, how can your God punish people if the message never reached them? Shouldn't you make it a duty upon your selves to ensure that they do even if it requires physical force? Isn't letting those people end up in hell forever worse than killing those standing against the path of God?
Saying that Christianity does not condone this is actually a negative for your religion not a positive.
I mean you as a Christian believe in how God ordered the Israelites to wipe out entire groups of people for being idol worshippers, killing of women and innocent children, etc.. You actually believe this and don't question it then you have the nerve to critique this Islamic law?
If you believe that it is possible that God could order such despicable things then why do you have a problem with this Islamic ruling?
You guys truly hold a very confusing position.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Bassam,
>> Now what is David trying to prove by this post? ... you can also wage Jihad against those people who are oppressing others even though they are not oppressing you.
As I see it, what David is trying to point out, is that according to Muhammad, even things like "insults against Muhammad, criticisms against Islam" etc qualify as an attack against Islam, and Muslims are called upon to react violently. This is something that belies basic common sense (which may be the reason you are trying to divert the issue to "jihad against those who are oppressing others"). Such doctrines of violence are like a loud call from God, asking people who believe in such things to reevaluate and reconsider the validity/authenticity of source of such doctrines.
>> offensive against oppression just as the police might be offensive against criminals.
For the police though, things like critical evaluation of a religion or freely choosing to accept/reject/preach a religion etc do not amount to crime that needs beheading and so on.
>> Isn't the entire earth God's land and God has every right to ensure that His message is sent across the world and that if there were those that stood in the way then they should be eliminated?
The entire earth is certainly God's. That does not mean that a group of people can assume the right to eliminate those who question/critique/reject the authenticity of a particular source that is alleged to be of God (and a vast majority of people disagree with the authenticity of that source).
>> don't Christians believe that EVERYONE who does not receive Jesus as Lord and savior will go to hell? Therefore, how can your God punish people if the message never reached them? Shouldn't you make it a duty upon your selves to ensure that they do even if it requires physical force? Isn't letting those people end up in hell forever worse than killing those standing against the path of God?
What the Christian doctrine says is that Christ's atoning sacrifice is required for anyone to be saved/forgiven/cleansed/renewed/reconciled. The benefits of the sacrifice may also be applied without one's conscious knowledge of Christ - like the people in the Old Testament or people before Jesus or who do not know etc. (who also can be saved on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice through their response to the information that God had revealed to them; their response to God’s self-revelation in nature and conscience etc). Salvation is truly available to all persons at all times. It all depends upon one's free response (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15; 2.7).
Jesus forbade the use of the sword for proclamation. It is amazing that you are asking Christians to use physical force and follow a "duty" of "killing those standing against". Instead, it is time to reconsider/question the source of the doctrine which asks to do such a thing.
>> ... you as a Christian believe in how God ordered the Israelites to wipe out entire groups of people for being idol worshippers, killing of women and innocent children, etc.. You actually believe this and don't question it then you have the nerve to critique this Islamic law? If you believe that it is possible that God could order such despicable things then why do you have a problem with this Islamic ruling?
Indeed, if the incident you mention from the earliest times of the OT were the ultimate and the final message/example/standard/doctrine given by God to live by, that would have been really a problem. However, the scriptures state how one ought to live life, which prohibits the assumption of a right on part of anyone to try and eliminate people for criticism etc and in its ultimate revelation of philosophical/moral standards/values/duties/doctrines includes radical commands such as to love one's neighbor as yourself, love one's enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Now what is David trying to prove by this post? Is he only trying to prove that some Muslims are wrong when they say that Jihad is only in self defense? Or does he think that this is evidence against Islam?
He's showing that you operate with a double standard. You can't mount an external critique of Christianity, because if you do, you're using a double standard of behavior: one for Islam and another for Christianity. It removes any grounds for a complaint about Christianity and violence in times past, when the Church indexed its power to the state in the Medieval period in particular, and it undermines your protests in your statements about the present and why we don't advocate it now.
When you said this:
“Well, no it wouldn't be right for you because your religion does not teach that this is something that you should do if such a situation arises. Our religion does. Therefore, it would be wrong for you since your religion doesn't teach it and your doing this from your own line of reasoning.”
You argued that if Christians do this, it is inconsistent with Christianity. Okay, if that's the way you want to go then that is in turn dependent on the rule of faith for the Christian.
Is it Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia? The incidents you disputed from the past related to Spain arose not from Protestantism but from Romanism. They do not share the same rule of faith, eg. the same epistemic basis of their theology and practice.
You can argue that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian (Sola Scriptura, the Protestant rule of faith) and thereby argue that Christians are acting inconsistently. However, this would only apply to Protestants. Your opponents here are Protestant, so we agree that violence, if employed is inconsistent with the claims of Christianity. We do this, based on our rule of faith.
But you're arguing specifically "it wouldn't be right for you because your religion does not teach that this is something that you should do if such a situation arises. Our religion does." Bassam, Medieval Christianity was Romanist, and Romanism does not share the Protestant rule of faith.
So you can't, on the basis of your own argumentation - for this is how you yourself framed the issue -, hold Roman Catholic Christianity to that standard, because Sola Scriptura isn't the Roman Catholic rule of faith. It is NOT inconsistent for Roman Catholics to act this way, given that ecclesiatical tradition has a stronger role in their rule of faith, and at the time, ecclesiastical tradition gave license to that behavior, and European monarchs used it to their advantage. QED
I'd also add that, from a Protestant perspective, consistent Romanism is a different religion anyway. If you want to argue they should be considered the same, you'll need a supporting argument for that. Why should we be responsible for what Roman Catholics have done. Non-Catholic Christians, specifically the early "evangelicals" of the West were treated just as badly.
Also, although various sins are inconsistent with Christian ethics, then are not inconsistent with Christian theology for the obvious reason that Christian theology includes a theology of sin. Sin does not disprove the Gospel we preach, for the gospel is predicated on sin.
Unbelievers were hardly the first to find hypocrites inside the church (Mt 23). But what about all the hypocrites outside the church?
Freedom of dissent is a modern idea. The Medieval Church was intolerant of dissent because the Medieval Church was an autocratic institution. But the same could be said of the Medieval State, or the pre-Christian state, or the post-Christian state—with its speech codes and the like. To single out the Church for special censure is anachronistic and blinkered.
There is a rote way in which unbelievers like you tick off the crimes of Christianity. They always cite the same, shopworn examples, viz., the Crusades, the Inquisition, &c. To this a couple of things need to be said. To begin with, since I am not Roman Catholic, I’m no more blamable for Catholic church history than Jews are blamable for the Nazis. After all, the Spanish Inquisition targeted Evangelicals—among other victims, and the pogroms slaughtered Armenian believers as well as Jews.
However, we need to make some allowance the situation facing the Latin Church. Islam was the mortal enemy of the Church. And it still is. The Crusades were a counteroffensive to push back a rising Jihad. Just read Urban’s speech to the Council of Constance. And the Spanish Inquisition was a mopping up operation to round up collaborators after the Moors were driven from of the Iberian Peninsula. Both the Inquisition and the Crusades got out of hand, but it is easy for us to jeer from the cheap seats, and I’m prepared to cut the Catholic Church a little slack on this matter.
Witch-hunting peaked, not during the Middle Ages, but the Enlightenment. Likewise, the wars of religion took place during the Enlightenment.
The wars of religion did not a represent a popular movement, but were instigated and prosecuted by European monarchs. The Christian conscript is not to blame for following orders at gunpoint. And the Irish problem is owing to the legacy of English colonialism.
Let us also recall that it was theologians like Augustine and Aquinas who tried to lay down the rules of war in order to minimize atrocities. Just war doctrine is a Christian creation. Before then it was a free-for-all. It's a free-for-all that Muslims like you are excusing.
Plus, don't Christians believe that EVERYONE who does not receive Jesus as Lord and savior will go to hell?
This objection only applies to Arminianism, not Reformed Christianity. If you want to go there and maintain the Arminian view, you'll need to make a case for this view.
Once again, you don't seem to be acquainted with the opposing position on this blog. Arminianism says this, but we Calvinists, by very careful exegesis of the Bible, believe that men will be judged for their sins, not whether or not they believe in Christ.
In Reformed theology, justification is by faith alone in Christ alone, but that occurs by grace alone.
We are quite comfortable with the idea that there are people who will never hear the gospel. They are born outside the providence of God in that regard.
On the other hand, Scripture commands that we preach the gospel indiscriminately. We don't know who the elect are, and the elect only come to faith by way of the preaching of the gospel. We don't order our lives according to God's hidden decrees; only his revealed will.
Therefore, how can your God punish people if the message never reached them?
1. No man has a just claim on the mercy of God. Therefore no man deserves to hear the gospel and be saved. God gives mercy to whomever He will.
2. God does not punish men for rejecting Christ unless, when the actually do hear the gospel, they reject Christ. God punishes men for their sins.
3. Sin itself generates its own warrant to repent. Romans 1 and 2 are abundantly clear that men don't repent of their sins and cast themselves on God's mercy despite sufficient revelation in nature itself and in their consciences to do so. They could and would if they didn't love their sin so much. Men can't repent and don't, because they won't repent. It takes a special act of God to give them them desire and thus the ability to do so. If and when God does this, He does this by (a) the gospel itself and (b) by a direct act of His power giving them spiritual life. They then naturally and willingly believe in Christ and repent of sin - which is the act of a truly living soul; given new life, it begins acting the way it was created to act.
Shouldn't you make it a duty upon your selves to ensure that they do even if it requires physical force? Isn't letting those people end up in hell forever worse than killing those standing against the path of God?
Notice that now Bassam is resorting not to an internal critique but an external critique. So, on the one hand he seeks to fault Christianity for not using physical force because of the fate of the wicked, but he takes away what he gives here with his statements that Christianity shouldn't use physical force because it is inconsistent with the gospel we preach. This is a duplicitous objection, and it exposes the forked tongue with which he speaks.
I mean you as a Christian believe in how God ordered the Israelites to wipe out entire groups of people for being idol worshippers, killing of women and innocent children, etc.. You actually believe this and don't question it then you have the nerve to critique this Islamic law?
A. New Testament theology is not Old Testament theology. Again, you don't seem well acquainted with the opposing position. We do not live in a theocratic state. The Church is not the state of Israel, and we aren't living under the conditions of the Ancient Near East. The church is the covenant community scattered throughout the nations. It is equivalent to Israel dispersed, not Israel gathered. The Diaspora of Israel was a judgment. In the NT age, the Diaspora is being slowly reversed, and "Israel" is now composed of Gentiles as well as Jews, these are the elect from every tribe tongue and nation. Only in the eschaton are the elect gathered into one body in one place.
B. The NT has no doctrine of civil religion. It's doctrine of holy war uses the OT as an example for the church on a spiritual level, not a national or political level. By your own admission, aren't Christians supposed to follow their rule of faith? If you think that's an inconsistent rule of faith, then you need to either make an argument for theonomy or refute basic covenant theology. Pick a position.
C. A simple survey of a course in biblical theology, specifically covenant theology, would disabuse you of this notion. The OT was types and shadows pointing the New Covenant.
D. As a matter of fact, we engage in "holy war" in our struggle against sin at a personal level. The church collectively does this when it puts apostates out. The gospel itself, when preached, is the sword by which we put an end to idolatry, et.al.
E. "Innocent women and children?" Where's the argument that they were "innocent?" They were all sinners. They were also enemies of the covenant people who had made war on them regularly in the OT. They also lived in the Ancient Near East under a different set of cultural norms.
By Steve Hays:
3. Holy War
Many men, both inside and outside the church, have a problem with OT holy war. Now this is not a case in which a Christian apologist has to try and supply a rationale for a Biblical doctrine or practice, for the Bible already gives us a reason for holy war (Deut 9:4; 20:18). So the problem is not so much that critics don't know the reason, but that they don't like the reason.
So, at a certain level, we may be faced with incommensurable standards. OT morality is prized on a theological value-system. If you don't subscribe to the theology of Scripture, then you don't share its moral priorities. As long as that is the case, further debate will not change many minds.
Many men and women are especially disturbed by the wholesale slaughter of children. This is understandable and even commendable up to a point. The love of children is ordinarily a natural and theological virtue. Much of human mercy is based on fellow feeling. Because we are men of like-passions, we have a sympathetic capacity for the plight of our fellow man.
But we need to guard against an anthropomorphic model of God. God has no fellow feeling. Divine mercy is not grounded in literal empathy or the bowels of compassion.
And our visceral revulsion to this aspect of holy war may be so strong that critics will have no patience with patient explanations. But I'd point out that if you lack intellectual patience, then you forfeit the right to raise intellectual objections. And I'd also add that unreasoning moral outrage is immoral. Unless indignation has a basis in truth, it doesn't deserve a respectful hearing.
In a fallen world, you have three options: (a) you can side with evil. You can do wrong; (b) you can oppose evil and make the best of a bad situation, choosing the lesser of two evils; (c) you can passively acquiesce to the status quo, not taking sides, and letting others make the tough choices and do the dirty work on your behalf.
If you go with ©, then that will save you a lot of wear-and-tear on your delicate conscience, but contracting out the hard questions to second parties and mercenaries does not absolve you complicity for their actions. It may make you feel better and sleep better, but it doesn't make you a better person. And it disqualifies you from waxing indignant over the choices which, by your moral abdication, you have delegated to second parties.
If you are a morally serious individual, you will go with (b). One of the things that makes evil so evil is that it forces good men to do hateful and horrendous things they'd ordinarily avoid. A physician may have to inflict terrible pain and suffering on a patient in order to save him, but he is hardly in the wrong to do so.
With regard to children, several things need to be said:
i) It isn't possible in this life to be just and merciful to everyone alike. Everyone is related to someone. You cannot punish a parent without causing the child to suffer. Does that mean that we should never punish a parent? Is that just or merciful to the victims of the parent? If a soldier or policeman shoots a father, he leaves his wife a widow and single mom. If he shoots the father and mother, he leaves the child an orphan. So there is sometimes no way of exacting justice or defending the innocent without hurting some other innocents.
ii) Moreover, we need to consider the qualify of life of a boy or girl or woman raised in pure paganism, what with infanticide, child sacrifice, cult prostitution, sodomy, bestiality and the like. The whole culture is an assembly line of inhuman depravity. Sometimes you must burn down the factory and start from the ground up.
iii) Furthermore, that sweet, cherubic little boy may grow up to be Pharaoh or Ashurbanipal or a soldier in the armies of Pharaoh or Ashurbanipal— who will one day be responsible for the mass murder of cherubic little Jewish boys and the gang rape of their godly mothers and grandmothers. I don't know, but God knows. The tares would choke out the wheat unless God engaged in a periodic program of weeding.[ And he saved the nation of Israel to save the Savior of Israel and the nations—for Israel was the medium of the Messianic line. Whatever children are saved, are saved in Christ. So holy war was a redemptive instrument.
Sunil said...
For the police though, things like critical evaluation of a religion or freely choosing to accept/reject/preach a religion etc do not amount to crime that needs beheading and so on.
From what I understand here, Sunil is trying to say that Islam orders the beheading of those who critically evaluate Islam (even though the Quran challenges people to critique it and disprove it), and freely reject or accept Islam (which means that Sunil would have to prove that Islam calls for the beheading of all non Muslims)
I don't know where Sunil got this from. All that I was speaking about last time was fighting against those that PROHIBIT preaching of Islam in their lands. Not MERELY INTERFERE, no it is ACTUAL PROHIBITION which sets a barrier between the message of Islam and the people. It is the God of the OT that called for the killing of those that called to their faith (Deuteronomy 13:6-9, Deuteronomy 17:3-5, 2 Chronicles 15:13, etc.)
Sunil said...
Salvation is truly available to all persons at all times. It all depends upon one's free response (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15; 2.7).
I read those passages and it talks about how people have a natural disposition to do good. But, those passages don't say that people have a natural disposition to believe that God came down on earth to die for one's sins. (how can someone know this if he didn't receive the message?) Are these people still saved? Please elaborate.
I do not bring up the attrocities of the OT in order to formulate an attack against the Bible. I only bring up the OT massacres in order to show that if you Christians are willing to believe that God could order such atrocities and submit your selves to this then you should not be able to have a hard time believing in any Islamic laws for none of them nearly amount up to some of the barbaric commands ordered by the God of the OT.
If you can believe that God ordered innocent children to be murdered ONLY BECAUSE THEIR FATHERS WERE SINNERS (Exodus 20:5-6, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, 2 Samuel 12:13-19) even though it contradicts 2 Kings 14:6 and the act it self is criticized in Job 21:19, then you can believe that God could set ANY LAW He likes no matter how unnappealing it is to us.
Sunil said...
This is something that belies basic common sense
Trust me, you as a Christian who believes that God could be man at the same time should be the last person to speak about common sense.
You as a Christian who believes that God was once a little baby boy who needed his mother to clean him up after he excreted on himself should be the last one to speak about common sense. You as a Christian who believes that God afterwards grew up to be a teenager and probably had wet dreams should be the last person to speak about common sense.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
I don't think you understood my previous post. It may be my fault or maybe something other reason. Either way it is not relevant.
When I talked about the use of physical force against the country, it was only if the country prohibited
I read those passages and it talks about how people have a natural disposition to do good. But, those passages don't say that people have a natural disposition to believe that God came down on earth to die for one's sins. (how can someone know this if he didn't receive the message?) Are these people still saved? Please elaborate.
No, what the texts state is that persons have a natural disposition to do evil Romans 1 is about the universal idolatry of man. Where in this text is there anything about a natural disposition to do good.
In Romans 2, the text discusses the universal nature of sin. Men have a "law of conscience" written upon their hearts, and then promptly turn around and violate that law. If men weren't disposed to evil, then why would they sin?
Men have enough revelation, according to these texts to (a)know God exists (cf. Rom. 1:18) and (b) what God is like. They have enough information to know the proper universal moral law of God. They have enough to tell them to repent. They do not have enough to orient them toward the proper object of their faith and thus move them to evangelical repentance.
What Sunil has offered, with all due respect, is a second way of salvation. I'd submit to Sunnil that this is unbiblical, and it's a repetition of an Arminian ecclesiastical tradition. Sunil, I'd strongly encourage you to revisit your thesis.
One is saved via Christ and Christ alone, via the gospel and the gospel alone, not by the light of nature. Romans 2 must be read alongside Romans 11...how shall they be saved if they do not hear; how shall they hear if they do not preach, how shall they preach if they are not sent.
I do not bring up the attrocities of the OT in order to formulate an attack against the Bible. I only bring up the OT massacres in order to show that if you Christians are willing to believe that God could order such atrocities and submit your selves to this then you should not be able to have a hard time believing in any Islamic laws for none of them nearly amount up to some of the barbaric commands ordered by the God of the OT.
You criticized us for taking issue with Islamic law while citing "atrocities" of the OT as if OT theology and NT theology are or should be symmetrically related. But that displays, as I told you, a remarkable ignorance of OT and NT theology. We view the OT via the lens of the NT.
Islamic Law turns on a different set of presuppositions. Islam, by your own admission, will use violence for evangelism itself. In the OT, the pagan people are told to leave and are only driven out when they refused, and where Israel went beyond its own borders, that was not given approval by God. There is no single unified covenant community in Islam. Islam does not exist in the ancient near east, though apparently it behaves as if it does.
Dear Genem
I understand that it talks about the natural disposition to do good in Romans 2:14-15. Oh well, this is an intra Christian discussion, which I don't really bother getting involved in.
Genem, please don't attempt to logically defend the OT atrocities. The only thing that you could do is believe in them blindly being from God. The OT was only mean't for the Jews, therefore the land mass was limited but Islam is the final religion for all, therefore it must spread to all lands. We don't force non Muslims to ACCEPT Islam, however we must do all in our power to communicate it to them.
Your OT relationship via NT relationship will never condone the rape ordered in the Bible nor the babies and children murdered.
The OT reliationship via NT reliationship that Christians speak about is the attempt (very desperate attempt I might add) to show that the OT's methodology of sacrifices leads up to the NT's concept of sacrifice. That the OT provides the pathway and leads up to the new covenant.
That is the relationship Christians speak about. I dont know what this has to do with the barbarity in the OT. If the barbarity of the OT is somehow relevant for the coming of the New convenant then please explain how, for I am all ears.
My argument stands. If you can submity our intellect to these kind of orders from God then you can do submit your intellect to anything and everthing.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Bassam,
>> All that I was speaking about last time was fighting against those that PROHIBIT preaching of Islam in their lands. Not MERELY INTERFERE, no it is ACTUAL PROHIBITION which sets a barrier between the message of Islam and the people.
Let us just get back to the point that David is making - even things like "insults against Muhammad, criticisms against Islam, hindering the preaching of Islam" etc qualify as an attack against Islam, and Muslims are called upon to react violently. This kind of violence is something that belies basic common sense.
>> But, those passages (Romans) don't say that people have a natural disposition to believe that God came down on earth to die for one's sins. (how can someone know this if he didn't receive the message?) Are these people still saved? Please elaborate.
What I said is that while Christ's atoning sacrifice is required for anyone to be saved at all, but the benefits of the sacrifice may also be applied without one's conscious knowledge of Christ - like the people in the Old Testament or people before Jesus or those who do not know/heard etc (based on response to the information that God had revealed to them; their response to God’s self-revelation in nature and conscience etc). GenemBridges might be presenting a slightly different view, but the bottom line is that one cannot assume the right to react violently, killing etc in matters of religious proclamation or indulge in killing etc for things like “insult to Muhammad” etc.
>> if you Christians are willing to believe that God could order such atrocities and submit your selves to this then you should not be able to have a hard time believing in any Islamic laws ...
The Israelite’s were asked to 'drive' the Canaanites out of the Land and execute those who refuse, to keep the Canaanites from influencing Israel (with a warning that the same will happen to Israel if they sin likewise). It is made clear that time is ripe for judgment on the Canaanites. Yet, there was a human agent (Israelite army) involved, and this is indeed a troubling aspect for a Christian (and may I add, it ‘should’ be troubling to anyone because assumption of such a right on part of a group of people does not make sense). That is why it is so important that the revelation did not end there and there is enough description/clarity of how people ought to live (which does not give such a right, there by implying that it was only a specific case of judgment applicable in that instance and humans have no right to assume such a right to themselves) and in the ultimate revelation (highest conceivable moral standard/values/duties/doctrine) in Christ, includes commands such as 'love your neighbor as yourself', 'love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you' leaving no one in doubt on how we ought to live.
>> If you can believe that God ordered innocent children to be murdered ONLY BECAUSE THEIR FATHERS WERE SINNERS (Exodus 20:5-6, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, 2 Samuel 12:13-19) even though it contradicts 2 Kings 14:6 and the act it self is criticized in Job 21:19, then you can believe that God could set ANY LAW He likes no matter how unnappealing it is to us.
None of the verses you quoted say that "God ordered innocent children to be murdered ONLY BECAUSE THEIR FATHERS WERE SINNERS". It has been made amply clear that the real guilt belongs to the person who sinned, not their family, though God is warning that when parents do wrong or experience punishment on earth, their children share the ill effects and earthly consequences of their actions (but the children are not morally accountable or guilty in the after-life).
>> you as a Christian who believes that God could be man at the same time should be the last person to speak about common sense. You as a Christian who believes that God was once a little baby boy who needed his mother to clean him up after he excreted on himself should be the last one to speak about common sense. You as a Christian who believes that God afterwards grew up to be a teenager and probably had wet dreams should be the last person to speak about common sense.
God is Spirit and in that sense, it is pointless talking about the physical body and attributes like you are describing. But Jesus as God incarnate, lived a real human life (sinless) and died a real human death as an atoning sacrifice. (and the physical descriptions you are giving are applicable to the historical Jesus due to the fully human nature). For a good articulation of the doctrine of Incarnation, refer writings of likes of Richard Swinburne or Tom Morris on the subject. But again, there is a difference between ‘common sense’ in dealing with violence/persecution towards fellow human beings as compared to a complexity of some doctrinal articulation. For example, the scientific models dealing with quantum theory can be quite complex to articulate - that does not mean that you declare it as non-sense and thereby hope to defend violence against fellow human beings.
Sunil said...
Let us just get back to the point that David is making - even things like "insults against Muhammad, criticisms against Islam, hindering the preaching of Islam" etc qualify as an attack against Islam, and Muslims are called upon to react violently. This kind of violence is something that belies basic common sense.
Sunil refers to David Wood as if he is some divine Islamic authority. I already told you that the Qur'an challenges people to critique it. The Quran calls for people of other faiths to produce proof for their religion and Qu'ran calls for dialogue between individuals. People can critique the religion but not blaspheme it.
As for insulting Allah or the Prophet this is blasphemy, which is punishable within the Islamic state. It does not call for an invasion of a country. Blaspheming God was also punishable in the OT. Blaspheming the messenger is basically blaspheming the one who sent him as well.
As for hindering the preaching of Islam, yes I already acknowledged that if someone is PROHIBITING the message of Islam to reach people they should be eliminated. Where is the immoral law here?
The people of the OT being saved only weakens the Christian viewpoint that salvation is only possible if you believe that God died for your sins. As for those who did not receive the message, the Christian majority say that they won't be saved. Even if one reads John Gill's commentary on Acts 14:16, you see that God in the past allowed people to die in their sins and idolatry without sending them a messenger or prophet. Are you saying that these idol worshipping people are going to heaven? I think you are desparate because you know that you are logically defeated and can't logically defend how God could punish people who have not been warned.
You say that those children are sinners. Read John Gill's commentary on Psalms 137:9 and see how he justifies the smashing of little babie's heads. Are you going to tell me that those babies were sinners? What sins did those babies commit? Cry to their mothers when they were hungry? Urinate over themselves and weren't able to change their diapers? Give me a break Sunil.
You are so subjective and biased. You are willing to accept these kind of things but critique Islamic rulings that don't and will never amount up to such barbarity (assuming Islam was even barbaric in the first place).
As for God being a man and quantum physics. No, you are confusing between things that are BEYOND OUR REASON and things which are AGAINST REASON.
Things which are BEYOND OUR REASON is something like God's omniscience. How does He know what everyone is thinking at the same time? We can't imagine it nor can we disprove it.
But things which are AGAINST REASON are concepts like 'what is north of the north pole', 'a number that is odd and even at the same time', 'a married bachelor' and so on. Similarly, the concept of Godman is self refuting because it is basically saying that God was omniscient and not all knowing at the same time. God was immortal and mortal at the same time. It is AGAINST REASON. God does not do things AGAINST REASON but BEYOND OUR REASON.
Before you quote Philipians and try to argue back that God temporarily gave up His attributes, you need to realize that those attributes make God who He is.
Its like taking cheese away from a cheese burger. You can't have a cheese burger with out cheese. Just like how you can't have a mortal and finite God.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Bassam,
>> As for insulting Allah or the Prophet this is blasphemy, which is punishable within the Islamic state. It does not call for an invasion of a country. Blaspheming God was also punishable in the OT. Blaspheming the messenger is basically blaspheming the one who sent him as well.
The OT civil laws were meant for specific period of time limited a small and specific land within a specific group of people selected for a purpose - there was never an instruction to establish such theocracy outside Israel. (people at least have the technical option of moving outside of the special covenant, out of the small group and their land). In contrast, the Islamic goal of establishing Islamic theocracy wherever possible (across the globe) as done by Muhammad and his Caliphs is a big problem that negates the idea of God's creation of free/rational human beings with basic human dignity and rights. In the NT, Jesus has given a much higher revelation and the highest conceivable moral/philosophical standard/values/duties/doctrines. Going back to OT to find some kind of a resemblance (though strictly it is not) is an admission of lower standard.
>> People can critique the religion but not blaspheme it.
As part of criticism, if one finds that Muhammad is not befitting to be deemed a prophet (and instead fits to be a false prophet about whom the prophets before have repeatedly cautioned) on the basis of actions that for from being ideal, like that of Muhammad looting/robbery of Meccan caravans, subjugation of occupied people on communal basis, violation of human rights, use of violence, murder, excessive polygamy, less than ideal example of courtship/marriage with a little girl, unflattering depiction of women in his writings, unusual physical symptoms and incidents like self-doubts of demonic procession leading to a possibility that he was led by forces/spirits that are not of God etc - is that a critique that would be acceptable to Muhammad and his followers? What if it a Muslim who find these things objectionable and rejects Islam (apostate)?
>> As for hindering the preaching of Islam, yes I already acknowledged that if someone is PROHIBITING the message of Islam to reach people they should be eliminated. Where is the immoral law here?
This is far from ideal. It is violative of the standard set of Jesus (of not to using the sword.). Jesus’ disciples and followers faced persecution and torture and died as martyrs. Islamic nations today are the only ones prohibiting right of proclamation to others (while Islamic preachers without embarrassment make use of that right everywhere).
>> The people of the OT being saved only weakens the Christian viewpoint that salvation is only possible if you believe that God died for your sins.
Who told you that it is a Christian viewpoint that none of the people of the OT will be saved? Please refer the views presented by Genembridges and myself above.
>> You say that those children are sinners.
Where did I say that children are sinners? Can you quote me please?
>> As for God being a man and quantum physics. No, you are confusing between things that are BEYOND OUR REASON and things which are AGAINST REASON.
I have brought up the example of quantum theory to show that there is a difference between a theological or an academic debate on one hand and the more serious issue of use of violence/killing etc in matters of religion on the other hand. As for incarnation, Thomas Morris for example describes the two natures in Christ in terms of consciousness - so that the Divine consciousness had full and direct access to the human consciousness (earthly human experience resulting from the Incarnation), but the earthly consciousness did not have such a full and direct access to the content of the overarching omniscience proper to the Logos, but only such access, on occasion, as the divine consciousness allowed it to have.
Post a Comment