Sunday, December 7, 2008

Muslim Leader to Obama: "Convert or Else!"

Most people don't understand what's going on in this video. It just seems like a Muslim shouting harsh words at our future President. But there's much more to this video. Muslims are told to invite people to Islam. If people reject the invitation, Muslims are commanded to fight and kill them (unless they agree to pay the Jizya with the proper amount of humiliation and disgrace). This video, then, is an announcement of Step One--the invitation. When the invitation is refused, Muslims are called to violence.

68 comments:

Joel said...

Here's my question: If we know that the Koran commands the subjugation and humiliation of all infidels, and that true, Koran-believing Muslims will stop at nothing until this dream is realized, what are we, as people of the West, willing to do to ensure our protection from this? I see a lot of Islamic experts warning about the danger that Islam poses against the West, but I hardly ever see anyone actually articulating a real solution to the problem. The fact of the matter is that Muslims walk amongst us, ever planning their next political or physical attack. And whilst I realize that a great percentage of them aren't really interested in following the evil dictates of their own holy book, there yet remains a good percentage of them that are (and do). So again, what are we, as people of the West, willing to do to protect ourselves from this enemy?

I guess this is more of a political question than anything else.

Spencer said...

David,
Do you still debate atheists? If so, then would you be down for a written debate with me on the rationality of Christian theism? Perhaps you don't remember me: I'm Spencer, a poster on William Lane Craig's blog. Feel free to contact me at spencelo@gmail.com

David Wood said...

Spencer,

I'm in. But I'm booked solid up through April. We can start in May if you like.

Spencer said...

David, great!

One quick question (and then we can discuss the format, refine the topic, etc). Do you accept these statements as true?

1. If the Resurrection of Jesus can be rationally doubted, then Christianity can be rationally doubted.

2. If Christianity is true, then nonbelievers cannot be justified in their nonbelief.

Sami Zaatari said...

radical how about you also debate on the rationality of atheism.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

What is it with these fundamentalist fanatics making videos about Obama, I found another one on youtube albeit from a different religion, ranting about Barack's religiousity too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNFCTSfm1cs

LouisJ-B said...

David,

any thoughts on this little gem.;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C73ePf_2KVw

David Wood said...

Yahya said: "What is it with these fundamentalist fanatics making videos about Obama, I found another one on youtube albeit from a different religion, ranting about Barack's religiousity too!"

Interesting. A few days ago, I did a post on the Mumbai massacre, and Bassam pointed out that Christians had recently broken some furniture during a protest. Apparently, slaughtering innocent people and breaking chairs are comparable in Bassam's mind.

Now I've done a post on a Muslim leader who threatens future President Obama with violence if he doesn't bow to Islam.

In response, Yahya points to a video by James White in which the latter says that he will pray for Obama. There you have it. "Convert or expect terrorist attacks" is equivalent to "I'm going to pray for the leader of my country, that he will repent, and that, if he refuses to repent, God will protect us from the evils of abortion, etc."

These two videos are perfect expressions of the difference between Islam and Christianity. If you go against Islam, Muslims are taught to slaughter you. If you go against Christianity, Christians are told to pray for you. Yahya condemns both as fundamentalist approaches. And I agree. A Muslim who sticks to the fundamentals will threaten non-Muslims with violence. A Christian who sticks to the fundamentals will call people to prayer.

David Wood said...

Sami said: "radical how about you also debate on the rationality of atheism."

Indeed. It seems to me that atheism has less explanatory power than virtually any other worldview (including Islam, Christianity, Deism, and so on). Let's not forget, then, that atheists also need to defend their position.

Two debates!

Spencer said...

David, I would be happen to defend the position that it is rational to believe that God does not exist.

Perhaps you didn't see my question, so I'll repost it again:


Do you accept these statements as true?

1. If the Resurrection of Jesus can be rationally doubted, then Christianity can be rationally doubted.

2. If Christianity is true, then nonbelievers cannot be justified in their nonbelief.

Nakdimon said...

Man. First, when I didn't know that much about Islam, I thought there was nothing wrong with it and I even thought that it was a noble religion.

But now I have been reading and listening to debates and to the pros and cons I must say, and this video confirms my position, that I have never ever in my wildest dreams thought that any religion would repell me as much as Islam does.

Listening to people like Nadir Ahmed, Sami Zaatari, Osama Abdallah and Ahmed Deedat, people who stop at nothing to just blatantly twist the violent Islamic teachings from Islamic sources to make it look peaceful and who twist the clear peaceful Christian teachings to make it look violent (how that goes nobody knows) goes beyond me. I have recently watched Nadirs debate with Sam Shamoun (Is Islam a religion of peace), Sami's debate with David (Is Islam a religion of peace) and Osama's debate with David (Is Muhammad a true prophet) and listened to the arguments from both sides and the contrasts are astonishing.

These Muslims stop at nothing to disregard their most authentic sources when it comes to defending Islam and when it comes to attack Christianity they will stop at nothing to take everything out of context to try to make the New Testament teachings look bad. In addition they will go to apocryphal sources, that are clear later fabrications of the earlier authentic christian sources, which is the New Testament.

On the other hand, we see Christian apologists trying hard not to misquote and misapply the sources of Islam: When they read a verse from the Qur'an, they support their case with authentic ahadith and tafsirs, going to Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawwud, Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Taymiya, etc. to explain as accurately as possible the muslim position.

Yet these are thrown out by Muslims as soon as they don't support their case.

Love for Truth is less significant than Love for Islam. As David already put it: Apparently, in Islam, killing people is equal to destroying furniture and threatening to slaughter people is equal to praying for people. As long as it acquits Islam, any comparison goes...

David Wood said...

Spencer said: "One quick question (and then we can discuss the format, refine the topic, etc). Do you accept these statements as true? 1. If the Resurrection of Jesus can be rationally doubted, then Christianity can be rationally doubted. 2. If Christianity is true, then nonbelievers cannot be justified in their nonbelief."

That's not really a quick question, and I wouldn't attempt to answer it until we discuss a number of other things. Here are a few thoughts.

My gut reaction is that it is rational for person P to believe X at time T provided X is consistent with all of the facts P knows and all of the beliefs P holds.

(1) This means that different beliefs are going to be rational for different people at different times. I would therefore say that it was rational for a person in fifth-century B.C. Athens to believe that the universe revolves around the earth, while it is not rational for a person to believe this today.

(2) I'm absolutely repulsed by the standards of people like Clifford, who say we can't believe something unless we have decisive proof. On my view, if both X and Y are plausible (and yet mutually exclusive) views, I would say that it can be rational to believe one of them and to reject the other. So on this issue I would side with people like William James, who say that some options are forced, momentous, etc.

(3) The problems I see with my above definition are (a) that it doesn't include much in the way of probability, and (b) that we may need some sort of knowledge requirement. As for (a), on my definition, if my opponent in a game of poker has five cards, it would be rational for me either to believe that he has a royal flush, or to believe that he doesn't have a royal flush. Both are consistent with all the facts I know. Yet it's far more probable that he doesn't have a royal flush; thus, I would say that it's more rational to believe that he doesn't have a royal flush (thus, I would say that beliefs can be more or less rational based on any probabilities involved). As for (b), on my definition it would be rational for a person who knows practically nothing to believe practically anything, since a number of views will be consistent with the limited number of facts he knows. But surely we require more than this to say that a belief is rational. Thus, we would need some sort of minimum knowledge requirement.

(4) I said that, for X to be rational for P, X must be consistent with P's other beliefs. This is true whether P's other beliefs are true or not. That is, it would be irrational for an atheist to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, since the atheist doesn't believe in God. Now I'm convinced that atheism is false. But this doesn't change the fact that it would be irrational for you to believe that God raised Jesus. In other words, if P has irrational beliefs that are inconsistent with X, it will be irrational for him to believe X until he abandons these other irrational beliefs.

So, as for your questions, I'm not sure how to answer. You ask whether Christianity can be rationally doubted if the Resurrection can be rationally doubted. (Note: You're assuming that the Resurrection is the only evidence for Christianity. This would be similar to me saying: "If it is rational to doubt that the Argument from Evil is a good argument, then it is rational to doubt atheism," which assumes that the Argument from Evil is the only reason to be an atheist. But I'll leave this issue alone for now.) I'm not sure what you mean by "X can be rationally doubted" (and I suspect that what you mean is going to be different from what I mean). You ask whether non-believers can be justified in their unbelief if Christianity is true. Here I'm not sure what you mean by "justified." I would say that a baby is in a sense justified in not believing in Jesus' Resurrection, since the baby doesn't yet have the ability to form such beliefs, and, even if he did have such an ability, wouldn't know enough to come to the correct conclusion. So please clarify what you mean (either here or in an email, either now or later).

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Interesting. A few days ago, I did a post on the Mumbai massacre, and Bassam pointed out that Christians had recently broken some furniture during a protest. Apparently, slaughtering innocent people and breaking chairs are comparable in Bassam's mind.

It's still condemnable though, perhaps in a more nuanced world, you would also concede to fundamentalists of fanaticism from the so called Christian World carrying out acts of aggression too.


Now I've done a post on a Muslim leader who threatens future President Obama with violence if he doesn't bow to Islam.

In response, Yahya points to a video by James White in which the latter says that he will pray for Obama. There you have it. "Convert or expect terrorist attacks" is equivalent to "I'm going to pray for the leader of my country, that he will repent, and that, if he refuses to repent, God will protect us from the evils of abortion, etc."


Yep, anyone who thinks outside the Fanatical Christian mindset will see what I am arriving at here.

These two videos are perfect expressions of the difference between Islam and Christianity. If you go against Islam, Muslims are taught to slaughter you. If you go against Christianity, Christians are told to pray for you.

Again, I thank God David that you work in Philosophical Ethics and not scriptural exegesis, for I would hate to see you dictate to Muslims (or Christians) on their teachings, seeing as you blatantly get things wrong on Islamic teachings.


Yahya condemns both as fundamentalist approaches.

Yes Fundamentalist Approaches to Religious Fanaticism, on the one hand a Muslim dictating in a vigilante manner against a non Muslim State (whilst representing no Nation State himself) on how to govern and rule, as well as on religious matters.

On the other a Christian, who fails to render unto Caesar what belongs to him, and attempts to have his Christian Laws implemented in Society. Both antithetical to the Original Positions of the Core Message.

And I agree. A Muslim who sticks to the fundamentals will threaten non-Muslims with violence. A Christian who sticks to the fundamentals will call people to prayer.

Well David, we're not actually agreed upon anything here, all I am agreed upon is that Fanatics should leave the American President alone.

Spencer said...

David,

Revised (1): 1. If the Resurrection of Jesus can be rationally doubted by those with significant cognitive exposure (SCE) to Christianity, then the truth of Christianity can be rationally doubted by those with SCE.

Revised (2): 2. If Christianity is true, then those with SCE to Christianity cannot be justified in their nonbelief.

Do you accept (1) and (2)? If not, what are your objections?

Spencer said...

There is also a lot in your post I want to respond to, but I'll limit myself to this one comment:

"(Note: You're assuming that the Resurrection is the only evidence for Christianity. This would be similar to me saying: "If it is rational to doubt that the Argument from Evil is a good argument, then it is rational to doubt atheism," which assumes that the Argument from Evil is the only reason to be an atheist. But I'll leave this issue alone for now.)"

This is an invalid inference--I am NOT assuming that the Resurrection is the ONLY evidence for Christianity. What I am assuming, though, is that the Resurrection is a NECESSARY piece of evidence for Christianity.

Note the distinction.

Sami Zaatari said...

i agree with you David, i dont think an atheist has a chance to ever rationally defeat any theist on a debate, the atheist doesnt have any real coherent points in a debate, just his biased view that there can be no super-natural happenings, which they cant prove. on the other hand, we theists have the full rational evidence behind us, that there is very very strong evidence of an intelligent creator behind this.

i have yet to see a single atheist answer that explains away the super-natural!

so i think its more fair to debate right at the start, is atheism rational in the first place?

Spencer said...

Sami, atheism isn't the issue here. If atheism were false, that still wouldn't mean that Christianity is true - which is presumably what you Christians care about most.

But if Christianity were false, or is not rationally defensible - as I maintain - then the truth or falsity is atheism is completely irrelevant.

David Wood said...

I'll respond to Spencer later, but I can't resist pointing out that he just called Sami a Christian! Welcome to the fold, brother Sami!

David Wood said...

Spencer said: "Sami, atheism isn't the issue here. If atheism were false, that still wouldn't mean that Christianity is true - which is presumably what you Christians care about most."

Sami's point is that, for whatever reason, atheists tend to think that theists are the only ones who bear any burden of proof. Atheists are thrilled to go on the offensive against Christianity. But why not see if your own beliefs can withstand scrutiny?

Spencer said: "But if Christianity were false, or is not rationally defensible - as I maintain - then the truth or falsity is atheism is completely irrelevant."

This isn't true at all. If Christianity is false, the existence of God is still a huge issue. Your response assumes that it's completely irrelevant whether our beliefs are true or not, provided we're not going to be judged based on those beliefs. But certain people (myself among them) don't want to have false beliefs at all. Thus, if atheism is true, I want to know it. If Islam is true, I want to know it. If the Calvinists have it right, I want to know it. If the Arminians have it right, I want to know it.

Spencer said: "This is an invalid inference--I am NOT assuming that the Resurrection is the ONLY evidence for Christianity. What I am assuming, though, is that the Resurrection is a NECESSARY piece of evidence for Christianity."

Hmmm. You're using "necessary" in a discussion with a philosopher, and red flags tend to go up. Note the difference between (i) "If Christianity is true, then Jesus rose from the dead," and (ii) "Christianity can only be rationally believed if the Resurrection cannot be rationally doubted." (i) is clearly true. I'm not convinced that (ii) is true. Suppose I examine Old Testament prophecies, and I come to believe that there are several prophecies about Jesus. I then become convinced that I should listen to whatever Jesus says. I then examine the Gospels to learn about Jesus' claims, and I find that He claimed to be divine, that He claimed He would die for sins, and that He claimed He would rise from the dead. I then come to believe all of these things. Note that at no point was the rational indubitability of the Resurrection an issue. I would have come to believe in Christianity for very different reasons.

Here's another example. Suppose I'm a Muslim, and I ask God to show me the truth. I then get a vision of a man coming to speak to me about Jesus. Later that day, a Christian preacher who perfectly matches the man in my vision comes to speak to me about Jesus. I subsequently believe in Christianity. Was the rational indubitability of Christianity an issue here? Hardly.

So what we have is that belief in Jesus' Resurrection is essential to Christianity. However, I'm not sure we can say that the rational indubitability of Jesus' Resurrection is essential to Christianity.

Spencer said: "Revised (1): 1. If the Resurrection of Jesus can be rationally doubted by those with significant cognitive exposure (SCE) to Christianity, then the truth of Christianity can be rationally doubted by those with SCE."

I'm still not sure of what you mean by various terms here. But I like to live dangerously, so I'll grant it.

Spencer said: "Revised (2): 2. If Christianity is true, then those with SCE to Christianity cannot be justified in their nonbelief."

Give me a clear explanation of what you mean by "justified," and I might agree.

Spencer said...

David,

“Sami's point is that, for whatever reason, atheists tend to think that theists are the only ones who bear any burden of proof. Atheists are thrilled to go on the offensive against Christianity. But why not see if your own beliefs can withstand scrutiny?”

If that was Sami’s point that it’s false: many atheists do think they bear a burden in the theism/atheism debate. However, my point was that proving atheism false doesn’t mean that Christianity is true. Atheism could be false and Christianity (or Islam) could be false, which was my only point.

“Suppose I examine Old Testament prophecies, and I come to believe that there are several prophecies about Jesus. I then become convinced that I should listen to whatever Jesus says. I then examine the Gospels to learn about Jesus' claims, and I find that He claimed to be divine, that He claimed He would die for sins, and that He claimed He would rise from the dead. I then come to believe all of these things. Note that at no point was the rational indubitability of the Resurrection an issue. I would have come to believe in Christianity for very different reasons.”

But what is Christianity without the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and died for our sins?

If you have good reason to believe Jesus’ claims, then if Jesus claimed to have risen from the dead and died for our sins, then you have good reason to believe in the Resurrection! So my point still holds: in saying that Christianity can be rationally doubted if the Resurrection can be rationally doubted, I am not assuming, as you suggest, that the Resurrection is the “only” evidence for Christianity – only that rational belief in the Resurrection is necessary for rational belief in Christianity. Hence your inference is still
invalid.

“Give me a clear explanation of what you mean by "justified," and I might agree.”

All (2) says is that if Christianity were true, then no one with SCE to Christianity could rationally withhold assent to Christianity.

David Wood said...

Spencer,

You need to be more clear about your position. Here you claim that in order to believe in Christianity, one must believe that Jesus rose, and that if we doubt Jesus' Resurrection, we thereby doubt Christianity. I wouldn't disagree. But this sounds different from what you say elsewhere: "What I am assuming, though, is that the Resurrection is a NECESSARY piece of evidence for Christianity."

"Necessary piece of evidence" sounds like one must base his belief in Christianity on the evidence of Jesus' Resurrection. While I believe that Jesus' Resurrection is the best evidence for Christianity, I'm not sure I would call it necessary evidence. A person could believe in Christianity without believing that there's any evidence for Jesus' Resurrection. (Note: People believed in Jesus before He rose from the dead.)

Spencer said...

""Necessary piece of evidence" sounds like one must base his belief in Christianity on the evidence of Jesus' Resurrection. While I believe that Jesus' Resurrection is the best evidence for Christianity, I'm not sure I would call it necessary evidence. A person could believe in Christianity without believing that there's any evidence for Jesus' Resurrection. (Note: People believed in Jesus before He rose from the dead.)"

"Evidence of Jesus' resurrection" can come in different forms. If you have good reason to believe in Jesus' claims, and Jesus claims to to have resurrected, then there's your evidence - Jesus' claim.

But let's not get tied up in these semantic quibbles. Do you accept my revised versions of (1) and (2)?

Spencer said...

"A person could believe in Christianity without believing that there's any evidence for Jesus' Resurrection. (Note: People believed in Jesus before He rose from the dead.)"

Just curious: would it really be believing in Christianity if Jesus hadn't yet rose from the dead?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

An excellent analogy of atheims is a little boy throwing stones while running away.

Atheism has a lot of stones in its pocket, yet it tends to avoid face to face confrontation, such as the typical statement: the burden of proff is on the theist.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Zami Zaatari wrote:

i agree with you David, i dont think an atheist has a chance to ever rationally defeat any theist on a debate, the atheist doesnt have any real coherent points in a debate, just his biased view that there can be no super-natural happenings, which they cant prove. on the other hand, we theists have the full rational evidence behind us, that there is very very strong evidence of an intelligent creator...

i have yet to see a single atheist answer that explains away the super-natural!

so i think its more fair to debate right at the start, is atheism rational in the first place?

Elijah replies:

I agree with you

But why is it then that most Muslim apologists use atheist methods and approaches that depend upon the atheistic philosophical proposition when they attack Christianity and the Bible.

Just look at Muslims using E. P. Sanders a Christian secularist and one of Shabir Ally's favorit, who does not believe in the supernatural and whose approach and conclusions are based upon such. I wonder if Shabir Ally would risk using Sander's method on the Qur'an.

Or the new celebrity Barth Ehrman who refuses to believe in e.g. the resurrection because such would break the laws of nature. I find it unbelieveble that I have heard Muslims use Barth Ehrman to refute the resurrection.

The majority of their conclusions, such as dating the gospels late first century and assuming a second century authorship for the gospel writings are ideas based upon naturalism and philosophy not history or facts.

Yet here Muslims happily run after these god-haters and virtually kiss their feets by applying their philosophical propositions.

Yet when any reference comes up against Islam proposed by the so called orientialists, then suddenly these methods are false, secular, etc.

I hope Muslims in future are willing to consider the approach and conclusion of the German Islamic professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, who decided to use the same form-redaction-source criticism applied upon the Bible, upon the Qur'an. Guess what happened, suddenly the Qur'an is no longer God's word and Muhammad probably never existed.

Here is a link to professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch new conclusion about Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html

I am nothing saying professor Kalisch is correct, all I am saying is, he is using the approach of Barth Ehrman, Sanders, Bultmann and a number of others. Individuals whom Muslims are forcing upon us as being historical guides when it comes to research the Bible.

And lets notify that professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, does not even believe in Muhammad's existence, but still claims to be a muslim.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Muhammad Sven Kalische is still a Muslim, albeit a slightly misguided one who believes in De-mythologising everything much like an extreme Islamic Bultmann. I would not call him a Non-Muslim.

However there is a big difference between this approach and the approach of more balanced Scholars such as Raymond Brown, F.F Bruce and the like whom Shabir has also quoted at large.

David Wood said...

Spencer said: "'Evidence of Jesus' resurrection' can come in different forms. If you have good reason to believe in Jesus' claims, and Jesus claims to to have resurrected, then there's your evidence - Jesus' claim."

Well now you're saying that each and every core doctrine of Christianity must be beyond rational doubt. Why, then, are you pointing to the Resurrection? You could just as easily have said:

1* If a person with SCE can rationally doubt that Jesus claimed to be divine, he can rationally doubt the truth Christianity.

1** If the doctrine of the Trinity can be rationally doubted by those with significant cognitive exposure (SCE) to Christianity, then the truth of Christianity can be rationally doubted by those with SCE.

This is what you're after, right?

Spencer said: "Just curious: would it really be believing in Christianity if Jesus hadn't yet rose from the dead?"

I said that people believed in Jesus before He had risen from the dead. This wouldn't be the complete revelation of Christianity, but such people obviously believed in the revelation that had been given to them. Remember the thief on the cross?

Spencer said: "But let's not get tied up in these semantic quibbles. Do you accept my revised versions of (1) and (2)?"

I said I'd grant (1). I'm still suspicious about (2). Did you read my concerns here? You haven't addressed them. For instance, I said that for X to be rational for P, X must be consistent with P's other beliefs, whether they're true or false. Thus, it would be irrational for you to believe in Jesus' Resurrection, since you're an atheist (even though atheism is false). Yet you obviously don't know that atheism is false. To get around this, wouldn't we need to add that P has SCE to facts relevant to the truth/falsity of atheism? And aren't there a ton of other beliefs that go into this?

To put this differently, you seem to be thinking of some kind of linear rationality--A to B to C--whereas I'm thinking of a kind of web of various facts and beliefs. We might call it a semi-coherentist account. As far as a particular belief in concerned, a person can rationally doubt X if X is inconsistent with the web already in place. If we want to say that a person with such a web cannot rationally doubt X, we're saying that, as a requirement, P must have a set of all true beliefs.

I'm not sure how to avoid this problem except by laying it down as a stipulation that P must have all true beliefs (at least, true relevant beliefs). So I'll grant this:

2* If Christianity is true, then those with SCE to Christianity and a background knowledge consisting of all true (relevant) facts and SCE to all relevant issues cannot be justified in their nonbelief."

How's that?

David Wood said...

Spencer said: "If that was Sami’s point that it’s false: many atheists do think they bear a burden in the theism/atheism debate. However, my point was that proving atheism false doesn’t mean that Christianity is true. Atheism could be false and Christianity (or Islam) could be false, which was my only point."

Sami's point isn't false at all. Nearly every atheist I've ever met comes with a bunch of complaints about God and Christianity, and yet, as soon as I ask a basic question such as "How did life form?" or "Where did the universe come from?" the atheist acts as if he's never thought of these questions before.

But let's rephrase things. Isn't it relevant whether atheism is true, regardless of whether Christianity is true? Of course it is. So why place all of the emphasis on Christianity? The only point here is that I have a belief and you have a belief, so if we're going to ask whether my belief is rational, it makes sense to ask the same question about yours.

I think that the reason you're resisting here is that you know what such a debate will come down to. You'll end up having to defend objective morality, finely-tuned universes exploding out of chaos, molecules defying all probability to form living cells, consciousness arising out of non-consciousness, and so on. When you have to defend these, the Christian's belief in miracles doesn't look so silly.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yahya wrote:

Muhammad Sven Kalische is still a Muslim, albeit a slightly misguided one who believes in De-mythologising everything much like an extreme Islamic Bultmann. I would not call him a Non-Muslim.

However there is a big difference between this approach and the approach of more balanced Scholars such as Raymond Brown, F.F Bruce and the like whom Shabir has also quoted at large.

Elijah replies:

First and most I would not consider Bultmann a Christian anymore than I would consider Kalische a muslim. Clearly if you reject Muhammad and the Qur'an you no longer belong to the traditional religion of Islam, by definition you may still claim to be devoted to God or a higher being, but not a muslim according to the Qur'an.

Furthermore more you say:

"However there is a big difference between this approach and the approach of more balanced Scholars such as Raymond Brown, F.F Bruce and the like whom Shabir has also quoted at large".

Elijah replies:

Exactly, he Shabir Ally has used unbalanced scholars and still does. That is my point!

Brown to me is a liberal scholar, I don't question him being a Christian though, but his approach includes the approach of secularists. The question remains whether this approach really is balanced.

A scholars worthy of consideration here is Etta Linnemann, a professor in New Testament source criticism, who recently based on her studies concluded that liberal scholarship is a lie and as a result and converted to Biblical Christianity.

She would categorize even the balanced approach as deceptive. And notice here that dating the Matthew, Luke and John past 90 AD or denying the apostolic authorship of the gospels is the balanced criticism you are referring to.

But the problem is it still presumes that accurate scholarship requries the denial of historical facts and the embracing of modern theories. Hence even if Brown and Bruce include such ideas they are in fact unbalanced propositions, and we can apply a similar approach to the Qur'an and say that any piece of historical evidence that may attest the reliability of the Qur'an has to be rejected since modern twenty century scholars are able to produce theories that fit our modern mindset better, what mindset? Naturalism!

So when you say that there is balanced criticism versus unbalanced how do you define and separate these, and why should we define the so called balanced criticism as balanced, what evidence do we have for its legitimacy.

And third issue you brought up is quotation. Yeah I notice that Muslims utilize a lot quotes when attacking the Bible, but do quotes necessarily present an adequate point that we need to take seriously? I mean most quotes I hear are taken either taken out of context or pushed upon Christians as a problem while Christians do not find the claim of the quote problematic.

Let us also consider, if Raymond's brown approach truly is so valuable as Shabir Ally and other Muslims seem to suppose, then how do you respond to the fact that Raymond Brown despite his use of redaction criticism and other criticial methods still finds strong evidence of for Jesus resurrection?

Is this not the evidence that the Muslims has shot himself in the foot twice!

Taylor said...

Sahih Muslim 19:4924
Muhammad said: When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [tax on unbelievers]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Spencer said...

David,

“Why, then, are you pointing to the Resurrection? You could just as easily have said:

1* If a person with SCE can rationally doubt that Jesus claimed to be divine, he can rationally doubt the truth Christianity.”

Yes, I could have, but my focus is on the Resurrection.

“I said that people believed in Jesus before He had risen from the dead. This wouldn't be the complete revelation of Christianity, but such people obviously believed in the revelation that had been given to them. Remember the thief on the cross?”

But you also said: “A person could believe in Christianity without believing that there's any evidence for Jesus' Resurrection. (Note: People believed in Jesus before He rose from the dead.)” My question is: would it really be believing in CHRISTIANITY if Jesus hadn't YET rose from the dead?


“To get around this, wouldn't we need to add that P has SCE to facts relevant to the truth/falsity of atheism? And aren't there a ton of other beliefs that go into this?”

Atheism isn’t the issue. A nonbeliever with SCE to Christianity does not have to be an atheist, so I don’t why atheism is relevant here.

Wouldn’t someone with SCE to Christianity – say, me or many of the nonChristians you’ve debated – have “facts relevant to the truth/falsity” of their nonbelief (assuming Christianity is true)? Someone who is SCE to Christianity is, at a minimum, intellectually conscious of the major tenents and claims of Christianity. From your perspective, wouldn’t you say we are NOT justified in our nonbelief?


“For instance, I said that for X to be rational for P, X must be consistent with P's other beliefs, whether they're true or false. Thus, it would be irrational for you to believe in Jesus' Resurrection, since you're an atheist (even though atheism is false).”

Wait, so you think I would be IRRATIONAL if I were to believe in the Resurrection (and give up atheism)? Obviously, it would be irrational to both believe in the Resurrection and remain an atheist, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Suppose I have SCE to Christianity and I’m an atheist. Wouldn’t you say that my holding to atheism even after having SCE to Christianity is due to an error in reasoning?

“2* If Christianity is true, then those with SCE to Christianity and a background knowledge consisting of all true (relevant) facts and SCE to all relevant issues cannot be justified in their nonbelief."

How's that?”

This is too restrictive. Surely you can’t mean that one has to have “ALL” the relevant facts in order to be NOT justified in their nonbelief. How many Christians have ALL the relevant facts? And by “have” you simply mean “aware of,” right?

Suppose you deny my revised (2): that is, you assert that even though Christianity is true, one with SCE to Christianity CAN be justified in their nonbelief. (You’d be committed to this claim if you deny (2)). But then don’t you have a problem? If Christianity were true, and it is possible for someone with SCE to Christianity to be justified in their nonbelief, then that would contradict the biblical claim that we “are without excuse.”

Spencer said...

David,

“Sami's point isn't false at all. Nearly every atheist I've ever met comes with a bunch of complaints about God and Christianity, and yet, as soon as I ask a basic question such as "How did life form?" or "Where did the universe come from?" the atheist acts as if he's never thought of these questions before.”

Yes, it is false. Sami was making a general statement about all atheists, and it’s false that all atheists think they don’t have a burden in the theism/atheism debate. Your personal experience with atheists does not change that fact.

Moreover, you are falsely assuming that in order for the atheist to bear his burden, at least partially, in the debate, he has to give a positive answer to those above questions. This is incorrect. One can present positive arguments justifying one’s belief that God doesn’t exist without knowing the answers to those questions.

“Isn't it relevant whether atheism is true, regardless of whether Christianity is true? Of course it is.”

Relevant to what? My only point was that even if atheism were false, that alone has no bearing on the truth or falsity of Christianity.

“I think that the reason you're resisting here is that you know what such a debate will come down to. You'll end up having to defend objective morality, finely-tuned universes exploding out of chaos, molecules defying all probability to form living cells, consciousness arising out of non-consciousness, and so on. When you have to defend these, the Christian's belief in miracles doesn't look so silly.”

LOL – come on, now. Scroll up and read the part where I said, “David, I would be happen [meant happy] to defend the position that it is rational to believe that God does not exist.” Posted December 8, 2008 7:15 PM.

So I don’t know where or how you inferred that I was “resisting here.” One thing to note, though: I do not have to give answers to all those puzzling questions about life and universe to defend atheism. If I can show that theism doesn’t supply any better answers, or worse answers, then atheism still ends up on top.

David Wood said...

Spencer said: "Yes, it is false. Sami was making a general statement about all atheists, and it’s false that all atheists think they don’t have a burden in the theism/atheism debate. Your personal experience with atheists does not change that fact."

You can't pin this one on Sami. Sami simply suggested that you defend your view, and he said that he doesn't think atheists can do it. I added that Sami's point seems to be that "atheists tend to think that theists are the only ones who bear any burden of proof." And your response is that we're making a claim that must apply to every single atheist. Now you're just being silly. Saying that there's a tendancy to X in the atheist community is far from saying every single atheist exhibits X. I think you're just looking for things to complain about. (Note: If you don't see a tendancy among atheists to point a finger at Christians and other theists rather than actually provide a case for their own position, I have no clue what atheists you've been hanging out with. But I'd love to meet them!)

Spencer said: "Moreover, you are falsely assuming that in order for the atheist to bear his burden, at least partially, in the debate, he has to give a positive answer to those above questions. This is incorrect. One can present positive arguments justifying one’s belief that God doesn’t exist without knowing the answers to those questions."

Well, if you can't answer basic questions about various features of our universe, this speaks volumes about the explanatory power of atheism. If your hypothesis explains nothing, what good is it?

Spencer said: "LOL – come on, now. Scroll up and read the part where I said, 'David, I would be happen [meant happy] to defend the position that it is rational to believe that God does not exist.'"

But there's more to your belief than that, so why aren't you willing to defend your belief? You're a naturalist, are you not? So why wouldn't you be willing to defend the affirmative answer to the question: "Is naturalism rational?"

Spencer said...

David,

Since you were attempting to extrapolate from Sami’s remarks his point about the “tendancies” of atheists, it would have been more appropriate to extrapolate from what he actually said. Clearly, he was talking about ALL of atheists.

Sami wrote: “i dont think an atheist has a chance to ever rationally defeat ANY theist on a debate, the atheist doesnt have any real coherent points in a debate, just his biased view that there can be no super-natural happenings,” (caps mine)

Suppose I would have said: “I don’t think a Christian has a chance to ever rationally defeat ANY nontheist in a debate. The Christian doesn’t have any real coherent points in a debate, just his biased view that there are super-natural happenings.”

It wouldn’t be uncharitable to attribute to me the belief that I don’t think Christians in general have any real arguments.

“Well, if you can't answer basic questions about various features of our universe, this speaks volumes about the explanatory power of atheism. If your hypothesis explains nothing, what good is it?”

You're under the mistaken belief that atheism--the belief that God doesn’t exist--is meant to explain the origins of life, the universe, etc.

“But there's more to your belief than that, so why aren't you willing to defend your belief? You're a naturalist, are you not? So why wouldn't you be willing to defend the affirmative answer to the question: "Is naturalism rational?"

David, you have a very bad habit of jumping (fallaciously) to conclusions. When did I ever say I was a “naturalist?” When?

Previously, you asked: “Atheists are thrilled to go on the offensive against Christianity. But why not see if your own beliefs can withstand scrutiny?”

Once again, I already agree once upon a time ago to defend atheism from attacks. So this question has been effectively answered. Since I plan on subjecting Christianity to attacks, it’s only fair to let you subject my belief--that I’m rationally justified in being an atheist--to attacks.

David Wood said...

Spencer said: "Atheism isn’t the issue. A nonbeliever with SCE to Christianity does not have to be an atheist, so I don’t why atheism is relevant here."

Here you've missed the point completely. You're saying that a nonbeliever doesn't have to be an atheist. True. But the discussion is about whether a person can rationally reject X. I said that a person cannot rationally accept X if he has other beliefs (true or false) that are inconsistent with X. I used atheism as an example, because the person I'm discussing this with is an atheist. If you're thinking of another belief system, the same reasoning would apply. The person may have false beliefs that make it irrational for him to believe in theism or Christianity.

Spencer said: "Someone who is SCE to Christianity is, at a minimum, intellectually conscious of the major tenents and claims of Christianity. From your perspective, wouldn’t you say we are NOT justified in our nonbelief?"

Here we're using different levels of justification. You're rationally justified in rejecting the Resurrection in the sense that the Resurrection is inconsistent with your present beliefs. But you're not fully rationally justified in rejecting the Resurrection because your present beliefs are false, and you haven't examined them honestly. (This is why I've been asking for a clearer explanation of what you mean by "justified.")

Spencer said: "Wait, so you think I would be IRRATIONAL if I were to believe in the Resurrection (and give up atheism)? Obviously, it would be irrational to both believe in the Resurrection and remain an atheist, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Suppose I have SCE to Christianity and I’m an atheist. Wouldn’t you say that my holding to atheism even after having SCE to Christianity is due to an error in reasoning?"

You're missing the point again. If you (falsely) believe that there are good reasons to believe in atheism (let's say, you're convinced that the Argument from Evil is successful), and then you come to believe that there's good evidence for the Resurrection, you've got a conflict. You would think: "The Argument from Evil shows that God can't exist. Yet the historical evidence seems to show that God raised Jesus from the dead. What am I going to do?" You can't hold both beliefs, but without knowing why the Argument from Evil fails, you still think that it's a good argument. In effect, your false beliefs about the evidential power of atheism "cancel out" the evidence you see for the Resurrection. (As an example of this, my experience tells me that I have free will. Science tells me that the universe is, to a large extent, determined. I also believe that there's a conflict between determinism and free will. Thus, whether I adhere to hard determinism, soft determinism, or libertarianism, there's some evidence against me.) Thus, without examining your prior beliefs, it may be irrational for you to believe in the Resurrection. The point is that your prior beliefs must be part of the investigation.

Spencer said: "This is too restrictive. Surely you can’t mean that one has to have “ALL” the relevant facts in order to be NOT justified in their nonbelief. How many Christians have ALL the relevant facts? And by “have” you simply mean “aware of,” right?"

I agree that it's too restrictive. The problem is that I don't see another way to put it. If a person isn't aware of a number of relevant facts showing that his prior beliefs are false (because he hasn't examined his prior beliefs), then he believes a number of things that make it irrational for him to believe in the Resurrection. How would you put this? It seems you're asking me to draw a line somewhere--i.e. I must say, "Here is how much the person needs to know in order for him to be rationally justified in rejecting the Resurrection." But I just don't see how I can't point to any specific quantity of correct background knowledge. The only way I could say that someone is fully rationally justified in rejecting X is to say that the person had all true beliefs and was aware of all relevant facts. That's restrictive, of course (and, I suspect, practically impossible). But again, I don't see an alternative formulation that I could agree with.

Spencer said: "Suppose you deny my revised (2): that is, you assert that even though Christianity is true, one with SCE to Christianity CAN be justified in their nonbelief. (You’d be committed to this claim if you deny (2)). But then don’t you have a problem? If Christianity were true, and it is possible for someone with SCE to Christianity to be justified in their nonbelief, then that would contradict the biblical claim that we “are without excuse.”"

Aha! This is why I wasn't willing to grant (2). There are multiple meanings of "justified," and I'm not going to let you equivocate later. I believe that there's more at work in a person's rejection of Christianity than reasoning. I believe that the Spirit of God draws people, that they spiritually rebel against God, and so on. This occurs on a level different from the rational. Let me try to explain what I mean. Let's say that we can assign a miracle a probability of .9. You would reject the miracle because there's still a .1 probability that the miracle did not occur. I don't believe that such a decision is based simply on a rational examination of the evidence. Now let's say that you're given evidence for 500 different things, all of which are more probable on Theism than on atheism. You always go with the atheistic answer, because you're in rebellion against God. And yet, for any fact, and even for the collection of facts, you are, in a sense, rationally justified in the position you take. That is, your rejection of a particular miracle is consistent with your beliefs, it's not metaphysically or nomologically impossible, and so on. So, in a sense, you are rationally justified. But are you justified before God? No, because whenever you have a choice between siding with God and resisting God, you resist God. You are therefore not justified in a greater sense. (BTW, the "without excuse" isn't about people who reject Christianity; it's about people who deny the existence of God.)

Spencer said...

“But you're not fully rationally justified in rejecting the Resurrection because your present beliefs are false, and you haven't examined them honestly.”

“I believe that there's more at work in a person's rejection of Christianity than reasoning.”

Do you maintain that all nonbelievers with SCE to Christianity haven’t examined their beliefs honestly? And by “haven’t examined their beliefs honestly” don’t you mean something like: “they’re fudging their beliefs to make them consistent?”

If so, then it still follows that one who has had SCE to Christianity are guilty of reasoning incorrectly, even if there is more to rejecting Christianity than incorrect reasoning.

David Wood said...

Spencer said about Sami: "Clearly, he was talking about ALL of atheists."

Actually, Sami said he doesn't think atheists have a leg to stand on. This statement is entirely true. He doesn't think that any atheist in the world can defend atheism. So his claim isn't false. If you want to show him that his belief (rather than his claim) is false, all you have to do is show him that atheists can rationally defend atheism.

Spencer said: "You're under the mistaken belief that atheism--the belief that God doesn’t exist--is meant to explain the origins of life, the universe, etc."

Well, if atheism takes God out of the picture, and atheists have no explanation for the data we have, I'd say that atheism has a massive problem. Let me explain by appealing to a common atheist criticism. Atheists often say that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus. Let's look at three competing views that a child might consider. The data is that there are presents under the tree. The child considers what explanation would account for these presents. When he is young, he believes that Santa put them there. When he is older, he believes that someone else put them there. Now suppose someone comes along and says, "I don't believe anyone put them there. They're just there." I think the child would be entirely justified in asking, "Well, how did they get there, then?" And his friend replies, "You've assumed that my denial that someone put the presents under the tree is meant to explain why there are presents under the tree. But you're wrong!" Well, if the person's view takes away the explanation for the data, and offers no alternative explanation, he's got quite a problem, doesn't he?

Spencer said: "When did I ever say I was a “naturalist?” When?"

You're not a naturalist? What are you, then? Please tell me, and let's focus on defending that in a debate.

Spencer said: "Since I plan on subjecting Christianity to attacks, it’s only fair to let you subject my belief--that I’m rationally justified in being an atheist--to attacks."

True, but if you've got a more specific position, it would be more interesting to defend that.

Spencer said...

David,

“Well, if atheism takes God out of the picture, and atheists have no explanation for the data we have, I'd say that atheism has a massive problem.”

There is no problem at all. Consider your faulty santa analogy. If the child comes to the correct belief that there is no santa, then even if he doesn’t know how the presents got under the tree, his inability to explain the data wouldn’t invalidate his correct belief that santa doesn’t exist. It would still be true that santa doesn’t exist.

Similarly, if I hold the true belief that atheism is true, then even if I don’t know how the universe began, or what caused it, my inability to explain the data wouldn’t invalide my correct belief that atheism is true. It would still be true that God doesn’t exist.

“You're not a naturalist? What are you, then? Please tell me, and let's focus on defending that in a debate.”

I’m agnostic about naturalism. I might be willing to defend Madhyamika Buddhism, but that’ll require a hell of a lot of research on your part (and mine).

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

How can you be gnostic about naturalism and remain an atheist, even though you lean toward some kind of Buddism you have been unable to study?

--I cant say I find you radically logical!

Spencer said...

Hogan,

You may not find me to be "radically logical," but I don't you find to be logical at all.

First, you seem to claim that my agnosticism about naturalism, given my atheism + preference for Buddhism, is surprising. I have no idea why.

Second (and this is where I don't find you to be logical at all), you imply that I lean towards a certain kind of Buddhism which I "have been unable to study." How did you draw the inference that I have been unable to study Madhyamika? Was it because I said that defending Madhyamika would require a lot of research on my part? If so, then the following must be your argument:


A. If defending Madhyamika would require Spencer to do a lot of research, then Spencer did not study it.
B. Defending Madhyamika would require Spencer to do a lot of research.
C. Therefore, Spencer did not study it.

Of course, the problem with this argument is A: it doesn't follow from the fact that I would need to do a lot of research that I haven't studied Madhyamika. Moreover, your claim is false--I HAVE studied Madhyamika. Extensively, in fact.

Why you seem to think my needing to research implies that I haven't studied the topic is completely beyond me. I just know it constitutes shoddy reasoning at best.

So, once again: I can't say I find you to be at all logical.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

radical logic

I read your reply

Thanks for wasting my time

May simply refer to you as radical from now on, excluding logical?

El-Cid said...

Yahya said [in reference to James White]:

"On the other a Christian, who fails to render unto Caesar what belongs to him..."

I comment:

Has James White been failing to pay his taxes? :P It is quite ironic that you criticize David for his lack of ability in exegesis in the same thread in which you demostrate your inability to correctly apply a Biblical comment about PAYING TAXES to secular leaders as required by law.

"Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" has nothing to do with supporting the political policies of secular leaders OR refraining from speaking out against them.

And I must say, that the parallel you attempt to draw between the vid posted by James White in which he voices disaproval for a certain secular political ideology and the one of a Sheikh openly threatening Obama if he doesn't "embrace" Islam, is akin to likening a desk fan to a hurricane!:

Both move some air around, but I've never heard of anyone being decapitated by a desk fan.

Spencer said...

David,

Hopefully we can come to a consensus about (2). Have I addressed your concerns?

David Wood said...

No, we don't agree on (2), and you haven't addressed my objections. We simply don't agree on what it means for something to be rational. Feel free to argue for your view if we do a written debate, but I'm not going to contiue having a written debate on the assumptions that go into a written debate.

Peacful Muslim said...

Hey, you are talking about this Muslim cleric, as if he represents Islam, he represents only him self.
I firstly heard about him in this video, and you ought to know that I'm Egyptian, so this man is not even an important cleric, and i noted that this stream was on AL Nas TV, and this is a known Salafi Channel.
You must stop accusing Islam for some fanatic Muslims, as we Don't accuse Christianity for fanatic Christians' acts.
And i fully agree with you in condemning this video,those words, this cleric and any similar, but not Islam. From Islamic view this words considered a sort of compulsion "Ikrah" not Da'wa , and the Quran clearly say: (2:256 Let there be no compulsion in the religion:). And hear the Religion refers to Islam, so God don't want us to oblige any one to be Mulsim (31:12:whereas he who chooses to be ungrateful [ought to know that], verily, God is self-sufficient, ever to be praised!).

David Wood said...

Peaceful Muslim,

How I wish that your views actually lined up with Muhammad's teachings! How I wish 2:256 hadn't been abrogated by Muhammad's later commands to slay the infidels!

The Muslim cleric in this video is completely in line with Muhammad's teachings. According to Islam, Muslims are to invite people to Islam. If the people refuse, Muslims are to fight them. This cleric is inviting Obama to Islam, and is threatening violence if Obama doesn't submit. I'm glad that many Muslims side with your Westernized version of Islam, but Muhammad's Islam was quite different from what you're claiming.

Spencer said...

David,

I asked for a clarification of what you meant by the following: “But you're not fully rationally justified in rejecting the Resurrection because your present beliefs are false, and you haven't examined them honestly.”


Do you maintain that all nonbelievers with SCE to Christianity haven’t examined their beliefs honestly? And by “haven’t examined their beliefs honestly” don’t you mean something like: “they’re fudging their beliefs to make them consistent?” If not, what do you mean?

David Wood said...

Spencer said: "I asked for a clarification of what you meant by the following: 'But you're not fully rationally justified in rejecting the Resurrection because your present beliefs are false, and you haven't examined them honestly.' Do you maintain that all nonbelievers with SCE to Christianity haven’t examined their beliefs honestly? And by 'haven’t examined their beliefs honestly' don’t you mean something like: 'they’re fudging their beliefs to make them consistent?' If not, what do you mean?

Spencer, I didn't answer your questions because, as soon as I do, you'll post another set of questions. Look back through this, and you'll see what I mean. When I said I can't debate this topic until May, I said it because I'm busy right now and I don't have time for two written debates on atheism and theism. It should follow, then, that I don't have time for an endless written debate on whether I agree with claims that you should be defending in a debate. What am I to do? If I answer your questions, you'll simply ask more, endlessly, and I have things to do. It seems the only option is not to respond. But I'll make an offer. Agree that you won't ask any more questions after this, and I'll answer you. (I don't mean that you won't ask any more questions ever; I simply mean that the present discussion will end, and that we will pick things up later when we're actually ready to debate our topic.)

Spencer said...

"Spencer, I didn't answer your questions because, as soon as I do, you'll post another set of questions."

Are my questions unreasonable ones? I want to understand your objections and comments so that I can construct an argument with premises that you'd accept. Otherwise, there's really no point in debating you.

Take your claim that non-Christians can be rationally justified in their nonbelief. According to you, they can be justified in the sense that their nonbelief is consistent with other beliefs they hold (say, believing falsely that the PoE is a good argument).

But do they believe falsely that the PoE is a good argument because they err in reasoning, or are they rationally justified in their false belief? Which is it?

You said that nonbelievers haven't examined their beliefs "honestly." A lot hinges on your clarification of this statement. If you mean that nonbelievers are "fudging facts or inferences," then, clearly, they cannot be rationally justified in their nonbelief. So what do you mean?

"What am I to do? If I answer your questions, you'll simply ask more, endlessly, and I have things to do. It seems the only option is not to respond. But I'll make an offer. Agree that you won't ask any more questions after this, and I'll answer you. (I don't mean that you won't ask any more questions ever; I simply mean that the present discussion will end, and that we will pick things up later when we're actually ready to debate our topic.)"

Compromise. One set of follow-up questions if I feel them to be necessary. After that, I'll withhold further questions until a future time.

Peacful Muslim said...

Hello Mr. Wood.
I think that I’m fully in line with God's teachings in the Holy Quran, and there is no abrogation here, and I don't know how you said that, or where you derived your say from. Another thing, we don't have abrogation in the proper meaning of the word, because the Arabic translation of Abrogation is "الغاء" but we have what is called "نسخ" and it's a bit different for example, we can consider the intoxicants,
First: God said: 2:219, THEY WILL ASK thee about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: "In both there is great evil [204] as well as some benefit for man; but the evil which they cause is greater than the benefit which they bring.
Second: 4:43, O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not attempt to pray while you are in a state of drunkenness,
Third: 5:90, O YOU who have attained to faith! Intoxicants, and games of chance, and idolatrous practices, and the divining of the future are but a loathsome evil of Satan's doing:' shun it, then, so that you might attain to a happy state!
So I don't think that you real have knowledge about what you said, and try to dictate, your view of Islam on Muslims, and stop accusing Islam for your thoughts and for some fanatic people, as we don’t accuse Christianity for fanatic Christians.
Finally I think that your words regarding my “westernized” version of Islam, was a very good point, because I only referred to Quran and you considered this a “westernized” Islam, and this proves to me that your thoughts about Islam is a little bit confused, but you agreed that the Quran can even satisfy you westerners.

David Wood said...

Peaceful Muslim,

What do you make of these passages?

Qur’an 9:29—"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Note: This says to fight people "who believe not." If you add anything else to this, you're correcting the Qur'an.

Ibn Kathir comments on this passage: "This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination."

Why were Muslims commanded to fight the People of the Book? According to Ibn Kathir, the answer is found in the next verse.

Qur’an 9:30—"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Ibn Kathir comments: “Allah encourages the believers to fight the . . . disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. . . . As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”

You say you're a peaceful Muslim. You know, don't you, that you're not supposed to seek peace?

Qur’an 47:35—"Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds."

According to Ibn Kathir, this verse means that Muslims shouldn’t compromise, seek peace, or end the fighting with non-Muslims when Muslims are in a position of power. Well, when are Muslims allowed to seek peace? He tells us: “If . . . the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah’s Messenger did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years. Consequently, he agreed to that."

What do you think of these passages:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim 33—It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

If you reject all of these teachings of Muhammad, how can you call yourself a Muslim?

(I'm also shocked that you don't understand how abrogation works. If the Qur'an gives a teaching, e.g. 2:256, and later gives a different teaching, e.g. 9:29, the later passage abrogates the former. If you reject this, you're going against a great number of scholars, such as Ibn Kathir.)

Spencer said...

So David, will I hear a response from you?

David Wood said...

Yes, when I don't have anything else to do.

You're kind of pushy, aren't you?

Spencer said...

David,

I don't see myself as being pushy--just asking reasonable questions. If you choose not to respond, I can't force you to.

Peacful Muslim said...

Mr. Wood, (as the Islamic greeting) Peace God’s blessing and mercy Be upon you, and all others.
I already know these verses, and I knew that you will show them to me as evidences to prove that Islam is nothing but violence.
Firstly you quoted the famous verse (9:29) that most criticizers, and fanatic Muslims, always repeat, and I know that it seems difficult (on the Basis of this verse) to say that Islam is a peaceful religion, but this apparent difficulty is related to the plane explanation of the verses of the Quran, in other words, explaining Quran out of Context, and this is a bad way of interpretation, because prophet Muhammad who received the revelation from God told his fellows not to explain the Quran out of context, and this verse in sura 9 was revealed in the 9th year of the Islamic calendar, and was related to the “Battle” of Tabok, and the reason behind this “Battle” was that Hercules “The Byzantine King” and many others Like “Ghassanids” who killed the messenger of the Prophet PBUH, prepared a huge army to fight Muslims and wipe , and so God revealed this verse, to give the Prophet PBUH and his fellow Muslims, the permission to make this fight to defend Islam and their selves, and when no attack happened they didn’t do any aggression and didn’t start any fight, but they made peace treaties with many Christian neighbors. So analyzing the acts of the Prophet PBUH who best know the meaning of the Quran, we Muslims should consider this Verse an amazing call for peace, and I confess that there scholars who miss interpret this verse, but there are also others who fear God and don’t interpret his words following their wishes.
And regarding your words saying that I shouldn’t seek for peace following verse 47:35, and you tried to put the verse in context showing me the next verse. I want to tell you that you forgot a small thing, which is the verse before: (47:34 Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth and on barring [others] from the path of God, and then die as deniers of the truth - indeed, God will not grant them forgiveness! ), That means that the verse is not calling about non believers but (the non believers who are barring other from the path of the truth) and this means that we have to fight whom who prevent the Freedom of worshipping. And I see much Nobility in this verse.
Peace Be Upon You ALL

Sami Zaatari said...

And David I will enjoy writing thanks, thats my main area, to write, i am a WRITER, debating is just a side thing, be sure for nice articles exposing the coward in you. :)

Ken said...

Don't all these passages from Hadith Al Bukhari and the Quran prove that Islam is not a religion of peace?

Doesn't the aggressive attack against Persia and Byzantine and conquering of Persia, Levant, Egpyt, N. Africa, and Spain prove that Islam is an aggressive religion that seeks to conquer the world? ( Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb)

From the Hadith of Sahih Al Bukhari:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.191

Mohammad did indeed write letters both to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and the Persian Shah Khosroe (spelled Khusrau in the Hadith below) inviting them to Islam, saying “embrace Islam and you will be safe”. Because they both refused, the Arab Muslims attacked both empires. This was around 628 AD. Then after Muhammad died in 632 AD; the Muslims under Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman, by attacking both Persia and Byzantine (Egypt, Palestine, Syria, later other parts of N. Africa) were merely following the example of the prophet of Islam. It seems that an invitation to Islam means, “if you submit, you will be safe; but if you don’t, we have been commanded by Allah to fight you and do “Qtal” (fighting, slaying, killing) and “jihad” until there is submission. This seems to be where the doctrine of Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb comes from.

“fight them until there is no more fitna” (Quran, Surah 8:39) which does not mean “persecution”, but it means “rebellion”, “sedition”, “mutiny”; “commotion”.

Quran Surah 9:29 “fight the people of the book until they pay the jaziye, being brought low”

and 8:39—mentioned in another debate.

Pickthall “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.”

Yusuf Ali - "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do."

Here are the references below from Sahih Al Bukhari:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 189:
Narrated Anas:
When the Prophet intended to write a letter to the ruler of the Byzantines, he was told that those people did not read any letter unless it was stamped with a seal. So, the Prophet got a silver ring-- as if I were just looking at its white glitter on his hand ---- and stamped on it the expression "Muhammad, Apostle of Allah".
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 190:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
Allah's Apostle sent his letter to Khusrau and ordered his messenger to hand it over to the Governor of Bahrain who was to hand it over to Khusrau. So, when Khusrau read the letter he tore it. Said bin Al-Musaiyab said, "The Prophet then invoked Allah to disperse them with full dispersion, (destroy them (i.e. Khusrau and his followers) severely)".
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191:
Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas:
Allah's Apostle wrote to Caesar and invited him to Islam and sent him his letter with Dihya Al-Kalbi whom Allah's Apostle ordered to hand it over to the Governor of Busra who would forward it to Caesar. Caesar as a sign of gratitude to Allah, had walked from Hims to Ilya (i.e. Jerusalem) when Allah had granted Him victory over the Persian forces. So, when the letter of Allah's Apostle reached Caesar, he said after reading t, 'Seek for me any one of his people! (Arabs of Quraish tribe) if present here, in order to ask him about Allah's Apostle.
. . . [too long for the com box, but you can look it up at the web-site] . . .

Abu Sufyan added, "Caesar then asked for the letter of Allah's Apostle and it was read. Its contents were:--

"In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Heraclius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship. None but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..( Quran 3.64)

Abu Sufyan added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech, there was a great hue and cry caused by the Byzantine Royalties surrounding him, and there was so much noise that I did not understand what they said. So, we were turned out of the court. When I went out with my companions and we were alone, I said to them, 'Verily, Ibn Abi Kabsha's (i.e. the Prophet's) affair has gained power. This is the King of Bani Al-Asfar fearing him." Abu Sufyan added, "By Allah, I remained low and was sure that his religion would be victorious till Allah converted me to Islam, though I disliked it "

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".
________________________________________
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

What is the Arabic word here in the Hadith for "deceit"?

Makr ?

If so, it comes from the same root of the word used of Allah in the Quran 3:54; 8:30; 10:22 - Allah is the very best deceiver ( Makara - deceiver, trickster, schemer)

Peacful Muslim said...

Mr,Ken Temple.
We are not here to discuss if Islam is a peaceful religion or not,even if i have no doubt about its peacefulness, it seems that you didn't understand that we are here commenting on an argument related to apostasy.
And i think that we can't issue and/or discuss all insults about Islam in this post. But regarding the Term "Dar Al-Harb" And "Dar Al-Islam", that you mentioned, without referring to all the hadeeth that you quoted, these two words are not Islamic and are not from the "Shari'a" Islamic Law, but this word were said by "Fiqh" scholars due to a conditional and temporary status, that was the several and consequent attacks of christian Fanatic "crusades", and if you don't know that many years ago "Al-Azhar" said that those words are no more valid because all the world is considered know as "Dar AL-Islam", because we can safely go to Mosques and make all our praises in any country of the world, and this was the condition, and this was approved by Consensus of all Muslim scholars.
And by the way the division that you made "Dar AL-Harb Vs Dar Al-Islam" is completely wrong because there were many other "Dar" territory divisions, such as "Dar Al-'Ahd" which mean a "Dar" that is not "Dar Al-Islam" but there is a peace treaty with it, and i think that all the 57 Islamic countries have already approved on the United Nations Charter.

Ken said...

Dr. Mr. Peaceful Muslim,
Salaam O Aleykum!

Thanks for informing me of where the "Dar Al Harb" vs. "Dar Al Islam" is from - do you have a website or source were this stuff is explained?
Where did it first come from? Does it have any textual backing from the Quran or Hadith?

Dates?

It is clear Muhammad sent letters to Byzantine and Persia inviting them to Islam or else. The same kind of invitation was given by Ben Laden to America and the same kind of invitation is this Muslim leaders to Obama, "convert or else". The similarity is striking.

I think that Islam attacking and conquering all the areas it did (Persia, Syria, Leb., Egypt, Pal., N. Africa, Spain till 722 AD) proves it is not a peaceful religion, rather it is a religion of force, which is what one of the names of Allah is, in Surah 59:23, "Al Jabbar", the forceful one, dictator, tyrant, from Jabr, meaning force.

Only Isa Al Masih can provide true peace:
John 14:27
Romans 5:1-11
Isaiah 9:6
Ephesians 2:1-22

There is no peace for the wicked. All have sinned and are guilty.

you (and I and all) are guilty. Mark 7:20-23

You need the substitute, the lamb, the mighty sacrifice, the redeemer, the ransom for your guilt and sins.

Repent and trust Al Masih. Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30

He is the lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. John 1:29

Quran 37:107-108
We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice.

ransomed = fedieh

see Mark 10:45

sacrifice and Eid Al Adha ( eid e ghorban) were prophesies of the Messiah to come to pay the penalty and guilt of sin.

Why did Allah substitute the innocent lamb without sin for the guilty human (Abraham's son)?

Al Messih paid that price - He was sinless. - Quran Surah 19:19

Revelation 5:9
for all the nations

Isaiah 53:1-12

Peacful Muslim said...

I think you didn't Understand any thing MR. Ken Temple,
And i'm not going further in this go and study what Dar Al-Harb And Dar Al Islam is before insulting Islam with ignorance, and try to discover how many other divisions was put by Muslim Fiqh Scholars, and study their motive for this political and not Islamic divisions. And more you can't find any Islamic "Quran-Hadeeth" authentic books speaking about this.
Go and find how many peace treaties Prophet Muhammad PBUH did.
And because you referred to my country EGYPT, you have to know that Egypt was already invaded by christian crusaders, and the Coptic Christians of Egypt helped the Muslims armies to liberate them.
And Only Isa who said "as from your books "
Mathew:Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
" (Luke 19:27); "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me"
And that what we Muslims don't believe about Prophet Jesus PBUH.
And by the way I'm not a DR.

Ken said...

I think you didn't Understand any thing MR. Ken Temple,

What did I not understand?

And i'm not going further in this go and study what Dar Al-Harb And Dar Al Islam

Why not? What are you afraid of?

is before insulting Islam

Solomon said, "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult." Proverbs 12:16

with ignorance,

not answering and not studying it any further is actually wanting to stay in ignorance. You should search it out and seek the truth. Muhammad even said in a famous hadith, "seek the truth, even to China". (not from Sahih Al Bukhari or Sahih Al Muslim; other Muslims have quoted this to me) Why not search it out further? If Islam is true, you have nothing to be afraid of.

and try to discover how many other divisions was put by Muslim Fiqh Scholars, and study their motive for this political and not Islamic divisions. And more you can't find any Islamic "Quran-Hadeeth" authentic books speaking about this.


. . .

And because you referred to my country EGYPT, you have to know that Egypt was already invaded by christian crusaders, and the Coptic Christians of Egypt helped the Muslims armies to liberate them.

The Crusades was not until 1095 - 1299 AD; whereas the Islamic invasions of Egypt started soon after Muhammad died in 632 AD until 722 AD (Battle of Tours in France). So your facts are anachronistic and wrong here.

What sources and historical facts and articles do you have about the Coptic church helping the Muslim armies to liberate them?

Sorry about the "Dr", that was a typo, I meant to type "Dear". I wish we could sit down and drink Qahwa (coffee) together and eat shisk kebab and hummus and discuss everything more fully.

I am not trying to offend; just seeking to get to the truth.

Ken said...

on Matthew 10:34-36 -- did you read the whole context or are you just quoting from other Muslim debaters?

Please (Minfadlak) Keep reading the verses before and after.

Jesus is not contradicting His other verses that speak of Him as
Prince of Peace ( Isaiah 9:6)
He gives His peace ( John 14:27) and Luke 2:14 - He was born as the Savior to bring peace to mankind, those who are pleasing to God.
Romans 5:1-11 - Faith in Christ alone brings true peace from sin and guilt and the justice of God against sin; the wrath of God against sin. John 3:36; Ephesians 2:1-3

Matthew 10:34-36 is speaking about the results of faith among family members who don't like the other person's new faith. If a son or daughter in Egypt reads the Injeel and becomes a follower of Isa, then the Muslim parents will be very upset and there will be division, strife, anger, and maybe beatings and jail and maybe "honor killings" of the one who became a follower of Isa. All Jesus is saying is that allegiance to Him must come before family relationships ( Matthew 10:37-39) and that unbelievers will not like the faith of family members, so a conflict occurs. "sword" means conflict, tension, persecution, not a literal sword.

Ken said...

(Luke 19:27); "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me"

Please read the whole parable ( Luke 19:11-27)

Parables and/or proverbs from "masal" = example, comparison (Hebrew and Arabic)

The parable is a teaching tool, an example, an illustration. It is not about execution in this life, but rather about the fate of those who did not receive Christ as their king in this life, and what happens to them after they die.

(Although it may be an allusion (hint, pointing to) to God's judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD because the Jewish nation and leaders rejected Christ as their king and Messiah.)

Hell is real. We are all guilty until we repent and turn and trust Christ to save us. John 3:18; 3:36

Hell is where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:48

Revelation 14:10 "tormented day and night with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the lamb."

Jesus is the lamb of God. John 1:29; Revelation 5:5-9

The wages of sin is death (in hell) Romans 6:23

You and I are guilty of hell because we have anger and hatred in our hearts. Matthew 5:22-26

You and I are guilty of hell because we have lust in our hearts. Matthew 5:27-30

Christ took my guilt and sin and satisfied the justice/wrath of God.
Isaiah 53:6

I repented and trusted Him to save me.

What about you? What will do on judgement day when you have to stand before Allah with your guilt and sin and lust and anger and pride and secret sins?

Isa Massiah said:
20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
Mark 7:20-23

Ken said...

Also, it does not matter if the exact words, "Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb" are not in the Quran or Hadith - these Hadith along with Surah 9 Tobeh (especially 9:5; 9:14; and 9:29; and 8:39) all show the textual foundation for those doctrines.

This is clear Hadith and shows that Islam by nature and its history attacked Persia and Byzantine in aggressive warfare and was not stopped until the battle of Tours in France in 732 AD; and this conflict continued by the aggressive Seljuk Turks in 1071 AD at Van and then after the Crusades the Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453.

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387)

These along, with the other clear ones from Al Bukhari that I quoted earlier, about attacking Khosrow, the Shah of Iran and Caesar (Hericlius, emperor of Byzantines) and the letters that Mohammad sent to them, all this shows that Islam in inherently warlike and seeks to spread Islam by force and aggressive war.

Ken said...

This shows being a "dhimmi" or "zimmi" (protected minority peoples, Jews and Christians) is not just "protection", but "protection from the Muslims themselves - Omar said, "protection from me".

From Sahih Al Bukhara -
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, [jaziye - see Surah 9:29] so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Peacful Muslim said...

First of all, Mr. Ken Temple,
I actually read the entire paragraph and, this is not me putting here the context but the Fathers of Vatican who put this context many years ago, and they used these verses and others to testify their wars in the name and the glory of Jesus and the Cross, so that they were called the “Crusaders”, and I ask you, should I take the context of the verses from you or from the Fathers of the Vatican?.
Second, it was a mistake of expression when I mentioned the crusaders I meant the Byzantines, and this is obvious and you can find any book of history, not Muslim nor Christian books just any book of history, that Coptic Christians were persecuted under the role of the Byzantines, and that they had to pay to many taxes especially when they were gave the Roman Nationality. And you can find for example the Say of Father Benjamin Who was persecuted and had escaped to the desert, and he only returned under the Islamic role, in my translation, “Now I found the safety and peacefulness that I wished for Alexandria, to end the discrimination and persecution of the unjust people i.e. (Christian Byzantines) ”.
Again and Finally about Dar Al Harb, and Dar Al Islam,
Yes, this is not Islamic at all but political and conditional, and those conditions ended, and yes the Fiqh scholars divided the world in many territories, not only those 2 (Dar aL Harb Vs Dar Al Islam), and Dar Al Islam wasn’t as you mentioned at all, it could be under Christian Jewish or even pagan role, on the condition that Muslims can practice freely their religion, exceptions from this meaning were rare.
And I’m not afraid from anything, but I only said that you are trying to put all your insults about Islam in one topic and yes I’m not going further on this, I know that this one is not going to end and there will be a reply on the reply and a reply on the reply of the reply. But I will tell you only one thing you can’t criticize any one of what he don’t believe.
You also said that we don’t like or that we hate the people of the other religions, but this is not true, you know that I have more Christian and atheist friends than Muslims even if I live in Egypt “a supposed Muslim Country”.
By the way I don’t what non Muslims have against the Jezyah, and you called it obligatory charity, do you wan’t a Muslims state to take taxes or Jakah “Islamic Taxes”, from Muslims only, and let all non Muslims get benefit from the Money of the Muslims without paying any thing? I see this wired, and do you know that al Jizyah is a lower tax so Muslims pay more, because Zakah is proportional to the money while Jizyah is fixed, and do you know that the Jizyah that AMRO BIN Al’As, set on the Egyptians were 2 “Dinar”, while some Muslims ought to pay thousands of “Dinars”.

Ken said...

Thank you, Peaceful Muslim - Shokran - that was better.

you corrected the mistake between "crusader" and "Byzantine" ( or the Chalcedonian/Justinian government) - good.

I am not Roman Catholic, so I disagree with the Vatican and Pope and the Crusades was a great sin, tragedy and wrong and unjust. Nevetheless, Islam started the whole thing by conquering Middle East, Iran, Levant, Egypt, N. AFrica, Spain. The Muslims were the aggressors, consistently following Muhammad, his letters to Byzantine Hericlius, the Shah of Persian, and the Khalifate Rashidoon, Umar and Uthman, etc.

Some history books claim that; true (that the Muslims liberated the Copts and Persians from their Byzantine and Zoroastrian oppressors, true). But the Muslims did not leave; they continued to conquer and take over the government and the whole area. that was wrong, unjust and sin.

Surah 9:29 says that they "feel subdued" (Yusef Ali and other English translations) "being brought low". (Pickthall)


I had typed out a lot and answered point by point but then lost the whole thing. Too much to redo.

The Christians in Egypt do not have freedom to preach the gospel or share the message of Christ with Muslims. You have mortad apostacy laws and honor killings when the government is too liberal for real Muslims. (like in Turkey) What do you say to that?

The Copts are not free to share the gospel with Muslims and invite them to turn to Christ as savior from their sins in their hearts; but you are free to preach Islam in USA, Europe, Canada, and Australia. What do you say to that?

The Byzantines in Jordan are not free and the Melkites and Maronites are not free to talk to the Sunnis or Shia in Lebanon and invite them to Christ. The Syria Orthodox are not free to preach to the Syrian Muslims and the Assyrians and Armenians in Iran are not free to preach to the Muslims there. (they have killed many leaders in the past 27 years in Iran.)

The jaziye point you make is ok; if there was freedom to preach Christianity and repentance and without fear of the apostacy (mortad; irtedad) laws in Islam. The Hadith says, "If a Muslim turns from Islam, then kill him."

You have not answered the specific texts from Sahih Al Bukhara that says Umar says the jaziye is to "protect you from me" and the others that show that conqering by Jihad/Qatal/harb is Quran and Islam and politics/military/theology/culture/society are all one unity in Islam. The Fiq scholars are just practically applying what they read in the Quran, Hadith, sirat, tarikh, tafsirs and ijtihad and fiq and qias all down through the centuries.