Preaching to Muslims is illegal in parts of Malaysia, but recently the Muslim government increased the punishment for anyone who would try to convert Muslims to another religion:
Malaysian State Stiffens Penalties to Stifle Muslim Conversions
This reminds me of an earlier post by Umm Yaqub, which asks why Muslims are scared to let Bibles into Saudi Arabia.
If Islam is clearly true, why are Muslims so desperate to keep people from hearing alternatives?
8 comments:
David asked
If Islam is clearly true, why are Muslims so desperate to keep people from hearing alternatives?
To these Muslims it’s kind of also asking...
If taking drugs is clearly false, why are governments so desperate to keep people from having access to them?
Well the answer to that question from their perspective is that it would be because some ignorant people who are not aware of the dangers of taking drugs might take it. Or that it’s possible that some misguided people would trick the individual into thinking drugs are good.
However, a Muslim leaving the truth for Christianity has worse effects and that is eternity in hell, therefore the government doesn’t allow preaching of another religion besides Islam.
Now, first let me state that this is the perspective of these certain Muslims. I don’t necessarily agree with them 100%.
Because Islam does not call for the implementation of these rules and the Quran itself calls for dialogue between the Christians and Muslims. The Quran itself tells the Muslims to ask the Christian to show proof for his beliefs. So obviously the Christian will have to be allowed to give his evidence and how can he do this without preaching?
So I was just trying to make you understand the perspective of these Muslims. I am not necessarily defending it.
There’s no point replying back ‘well these Muslims are assuming that Islam is the truth etc.’. You have to look at it from their perspective and realize that they don’t merely assume but know with a certainty.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
It is really amazing why Muslims in secular democracies who exercise their right of religious preaching do not oppose governmental ban on non-islamic preaching in Islamic nations.
In the previous post, Bessam asks "If taking drugs is clearly false, why are governments so desperate to keep people from having access to them?", and then adds "realize that they don’t merely assume but know with a certainty.”
Now, many people of other religions also "know with a certainty" that their religion is good and Islam is not. Should they also ban Islamic preaching and ban access to Quran? The comparison with drugs is highly misplaced. It may be their "perspective", but it is certainly a wrong perspective that belies basic common sense.
Interestingly, in an earlier post, Bassam wrote:
"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."
Bassam says that Muslims invaded lands where they weren't allowed to preach. Hence, according to Bassam's reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for Christians to say, "Hey, they're not letting us preach in Malaysia (or the Middle East). Let's invade them."
David said: Hence, according to Bassam's reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for Christians to say, "Hey, they're not letting us preach in Malaysia (or the Middle East). Let's invade them."
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. So if Muslims fought back and condemned this we wouldn't be opposing your religion but your personal ideology.
Plus Jesus has made it clear in certain verses that he is only to be sent to the Jews and no one else, then there are other contradictory verses which state otherwise. Its interesting to note that Jesus did not command the preaching to the whole world in the earliest gospel (that is Mark and assuming you are a Christian that holds the view that Mark 16:9-20 is doubtful) but this developed later on in other later gospels. So your religion does not even make it self clear that Christianity should be spread to the world. Even if it did, it does not state that you should do so at all costs and that includes fighting.
Also, Islam teaches theocracy while Christianity doesn't. So your religion doesn't teach a 'Christian government' or 'Christian army', hence you don't have any right to invade a land for the sake of your religion.
The more peaceful and logical approach is for people to approach the Malaysian government and explain to them that what they are doing is not in line with Islamic teachings.
However, more significant religious discrimination is occuring in the world such as the prohibition of women to wear the hijab in France and Amsterdam. Here, we clearly see opposition against Muslim women to practice something compulsory in their religion. While, as for Christians in Malaysia, preaching is not something compulsory but just simply a moral duty. No Christian will be held accountable or punished by God for not preaching the faith. I understand that preaching is something important for you but not as important as the discrimination against the Muslims in Europe.
Maybe, David could put a post about this discrimination on his blog, oh yeah i forgot his website is biased.
At the end of the day, Christianity is clearly not the true religion of God (i hope David attempts to prove me wrong by putting a post that shows 'evidence' for Christianity), therefore we are not really depriving the people from something beneficial. Its because of this, Muslims are not really that motivated so speak out against the issue, for there are worse things happening in the world such as Muslims being discriminated in the west, Muslims being oppressed by tyrants, religios discrimination etc.. So we are too occupied with our own problems.
Kind Regards,
Bassam
Bassam,
>> 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.
This is amazing stuff. Isn’t it embarrassing to admit such a thing - "my religion allows use of force/fighting in matters of religious belief, yours does not. So I can use it but you cannot!". But I appreciate your frankness, instead of trying to quote some nice pre-Hijrah Meccan Surah.
>> Jesus has made it clear in certain verses that he is only to be sent to the Jews and no one else ...Even if it did, it does not state that you should do so at all costs and that includes fighting.
There is a clear progression from preaching among Jews first and then through them to rest of the world. Why did the disciples/apostles ordained by Jesus went out to establish early church in several parts of the world (and being martyred in the process)? The commission for preaching is derived from multiple places in the NT. If the Hindu scriptures do not ask to preach, does it mean they should not preach? Expression of beliefs is a basic human trait/right. The idea of "including fighting" in matters of conscience is uniquely Islamic and a good reason to reconsider, reevaluate the source of the religion.
>> The more peaceful and logical approach is for people to approach the Malaysian government and explain to them
Fine, but it is interesting why the "peaceful and logical approach" does not occur to them, to begin with. The assertion of basic human rights on behalf of all people should come automatically without need to be taught.
>> religious discrimination is occuring in the world such as the prohibition of women to wear the hijab in France and Amsterdam.
I agree that France is incorrect in its approach. Democracy and human rights should mean freedom to practice all religions/cultures. But they did not show "discrimination" or favoritism of one over the other. In any case, this cannot be compared to the religious persecution, killings, human rights violations in the name of religion in Islamic countries. Islamic scholars who are persecuted in their own countries or are forced into exile.
>> At the end of the day, Christianity is clearly not the true religion of God ...
Nothing can be a more simplistic a statement than this. A large number of people would disagree with this statement and an even vast majority of people would clearly see the intrinsically simplistic, unsustainable and subjective nature of the statement. Is it not clear enough that there are several religious beliefs in this world and everyone thinks (for reasons best known to them) that theirs is the right one? Everyone has a right to believe in the truth of a particular worldview, and proclaim the same (as long as force/fighting is not used and basic human rights not violated).
>> Jesus has made it clear in certain verses that he is only to be sent to the Jews and no one else ...Even if it did, it does not state that you should do so at all costs and that includes fighting.
That's only true if dispensationalism is true. Where's the supporting argument.
In fact, Jesus said that he would draw all to himself in John 12:32. The context here was Greeks - Gentiles-coming to Him.
The universality of the gospel across exclusively Jewish lines is one of the major themes of John's Gospel. It's also a theme in Luke.
It's also possible to interpret references to Israel as a reference not to a nation but pious Jews, the root of the nation's election. In some contexts it refers to the elect, both Jew and Gentile.
It would help if you bother to acquaint yourself with the opposing position, Bassam.
At the end of the day, Christianity is clearly not the true religion of God (i hope David attempts to prove me wrong by putting a post that shows 'evidence' for Christianity), therefore we are not really depriving the people from something beneficial.
Each side has it's own burden of proof. A negative for Christianity would not select for Islam. You're just begging the question - yet again.
Your appeal for evidence is duplicitous. You are claiming the Bible is full of errors, but your rebuttal amounts to assuming your book is correct without argument or mounting spurious critiques. So, what you give with one hand, you take away with the other when you look at the evidence for which you makes a demand.
I'm a Malaysian Christian and my heart burns for the Muslims in my country. It is a tough situation surely, but as Esther said, "If I die, I die."
"The more peaceful and logical approach is for people to approach the Malaysian government and explain to them that what they are doing is not in line with Islamic teachings."
-- 09 July 2011, a peaceful rally for clean election (nothing to do with religion) was met with violent response from the government. So, do you think we haven't tried?
I'm a Malaysian Christian. Temptations and all odds we're facing make us stronger. Getting stronger and stronger than ever. In Jesus name, Amen. Pray for Malaysia :) Jesus bless Malaysia.
Post a Comment