Sabatina James has one wish. She wants to enjoy the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is 60 years old this week. But the 26-year-old Austrian of Pakistani heritage, in hiding since becoming Christian, is at the center of a storm between Islam and international human rights law.
After converting from Islam a few years ago, James had to flee from a father who wanted her killed for apostasy -- and from Austrian authorities who instead of protecting her, suggested she resolve the conflict by returning to Islam. Read more.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Islam's Challenges To 'Universal Human Rights'
My Muslim friends often assure me that the rule about killing apostates only applies in Muslim countries. The problem, as I've noted, is that this isn't what the Muslim sources say. The Muslim sources simply say that apostates are to be killed, and that those who kill apostates will be rewarded in heaven. Unfortunately, this gives Muslims who read al-Bukhari a license to kill. Here's an article discussing what's going on in Europe.
47 comments:
Thank God in Islam we don't have this concept of Sola Scriptura, otherwise we'd have people with very surface based understanding of the texts taking them blatantly out of a nuanced context, and misapplying rulings.
As I've said before, I'm glad you're not an exegete David.
TRANSLATION OF YAHYA'S COMMENTS: "Thank God in Islam we don't take Muhammad's commands too seriously. We have so many scholars that interpret Muhammad's claims in completely different ways. And we're free to go with any scholar we like! Thus, no matter what I feel like doing, I can always find a scholar who says I should do it, regardless of whether or not the interpretation lines up with Muhammad's commands. I'm glad David isn't an exegete. David actually listens to what Muhammad says and tells us that Muslims are supposed to follow it! What would the world come to if Muslims followed David's exegesis? People would be doing whatever Muhammad said--killing apostates wherever they find them, beating women into submission, torturing people for money, slaying infidels everywhere! Such barbarity would be unthinkable! Fortunately, we don't agree with David's methodology. We decide what's going to make us feel good, and we find a scholar who supports our view. Welcome to Islam!"
Yahya--
Even if you were right about your interpretation of laws regarding apostasy, the fact of the matter is many Muslims disagree with you and have solid exegetical reasons for doing so. People are being persecuted by your religion and are dying while you sit back with your arms folded, content with citing improper exegesis.
Bottom line: Human rights are being curtailed, if not because of the clear teachings of Islam, then at least because of the ambiguous teachings of Islam.
But I stand with David on this one - you are importing tolerance into Islam where it simply does not exist.
Nabeel you should know all about intolernce, your Bible tells you not to allow unbelievers into your home, nor to wish them God speed. quite funny if you ask me as you lived under the roof of a Muslim for quite some time, yet if it were the other way round, and if u were a true Christian, you wouldnt allow those same Muslims into your home.
:) offcourse your the one who imports tolerance into Christianity.
As for human rights, what about the human rights of all those tribes in Palestine and the surrounding areas whom the Israelites wiped out under the order of your genocidal homocidal God? orrr oh wait i remember, thats not wrong because it was limited to a specific geographical area and specific people, yesssss yes.
lol so funny Christians want to talk about human rights when the OT is full of violations against human rights, yet offcourse you make all the excuses which makes it more amusing. oh that was 2000 years ago, so its ok!!!!!! or no no that was the OT, you guys are marcionites, so yeah i guess it doesnt really matter.
LOL Nabeel you really want to talk about human rights? your entire belief system is AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS. you believe an innocent man named Jesus, was tortured, and murdered. this is one of the worst crimes under human rights, yet you believe this act to be your foundation, and you praise this act and even celebrate it, you even carry the criminal symbol on your chest! so plz dont try to kid anyone here about human rights.
i also have a good bet that human rights would be against texts that call the Jews the son of the devil, the synangog of satan, as well as being liars. so AGAIN dont try to kid anyone with this human rights issue.
i also haveeeeee a really good bet that human rights is against eternally damning someone to a lake of tortorous fire!
sheesh Nabeel, which book of human rights have you read? the one where you conveniantly pick and choose what suits you?
infact Nabeel put your money where your mouth is, for April, I challenge you to a debate on whether Christianity is agreeable with Human rights. since you love to talk human rights, then lets see if the evidence matches up.
The New Testaments writers believed that they were living in the end times,this why they adopted a passivest approach. As they belived that the World was going to end very soon and that Jesus would return and he would usher in a Messianic age with the violent overthrowing of Kingdoms. This is why New Testament Christian were told to just simply submit to the governing authorites of the day, i.e. the Romans, who have been put into power by God. Despite the fact that the Romans were historically pagans and a trynnical state who persecuted both Christians and Jews.
Wow,
Nabeel posted a thoughtful comment, and Sami responded with an insulting (and, as usual, horribly inaccurate) tirade.
I'm interested in this topic. How about a two-on-two debate on human rights, Sami? Got a friend you trust?
Nazam said: "The New Testaments writers believed that they were living in the end times,this why they adopted a passivest approach."
This is inaccurate on multiple levels. First, Jesus commanded us to turn the other cheek. Thus, we're commanded to be peaceful regardless of when the end times come. (To put it differently, Jesus' command stands apart from eschatological interpretations.)
Second, Jews in the first century believed that the end times were close. Did this cause them to become more peaceful? No! It caused them to be more violent and rebellious against the Romans! (In other words, if Christianity really has any tendency towards violence, Christians would have only been encouraged by the thought that their battles were part of the end times. And the first few centuries were the most peaceful centuries of Christianity in history. Thus, Nazam, you've actually helped show that Christianity has no tendency towards violence! Thank you, my friend!)
Yahya: In Islam we have a means of balanced interpretation, much like Systematic Theology, it's quite different to random at will- Sola Scriptura.
David: Erm YEAH RIGHT, I've never seen such a contextualization for the Application of Penal Laws on the Crime of Apostasy.
Yahya: Yeah, well you're limited to a series of english books and articles on it..... so your range of literature is limited.
David: Yeah well, you're not following Muhammad now, you're following some modern scholar who use their modern context to reinterpret the statements in light of modern times! When will we see Muslims sing from the same hymn sheet of interpretation like we do.
Yahya: Yes Professor Wood, you Christians all have one monolithic interpretation don't you?! Sola Scriptura, wow looks like the Holy Spirit doesn't always do it's exegetical duties there with you guys either. Or Maybe Cicero got his interpretation for retaliating two fold from the Talmud?!
"Yahya Hayder Seymour"... one simple answer: LOOOOL... I realli like reading your comments (???)... it's like seeing a Candid Camera program...
first you create, by an erroneos knowledge, a foony situation;
then you shows to other (who really understand what is christianity and islam without deceit) that it wasn't true...
May the true God shows you the path to the true...
I insulted? would you mind showing me where I insulted anybody?
and i prefer a 1-1 with Nabil on human rights and Christianity.
Yahya,
I just have to ask: How are most Muslims, who don't have the resources or the time to master your special methodology, supposed to know what to do in a given situation? If they open the Qur'an, they're told to beat their wives into submission. There's nothing in there about tapping them lightly with a small stick (as Sami says) or brushing them with green grass (as Adnan says). The Qur'an doesn't clarify. So a Muslim with a Qur'an only would have mutltiple options available to him. Let's be clear about your view here: The Qur'an doesn't give sufficient guidance.
Desperate for more insights (since they can't depend on the Qur'an to guide them), let's say that Muslims go to al-Bukhari. Here they find a woman being beaten until her skin turns green, and Muhammad doesn't rebuke the man who did it. Conclusion: It's acceptable to beat a woman until her skin turns green. But neither Sami nor Adnan would want a Muslim to conclude this; hence, the Qur'an combined with al-Bukhari isn't enough to give the correct interpretation. (And neither would the Qur'an combined with all sorts of other books.)
We can apply this to all sorts of situations. A Muslim reading al-Bukhari, without Muslims like Bassam or Adnan adding their views, would conclude that he is supposed to kill apostates.
Your response is that "we have a means of balanced interpretation" by which you mean what? How is the average Muslim, living in, say, Africa or Southeast Asia, supposed to know what to do in a given situation? You've said that he can't simply go to the Qur'an, because you don't believe in Sola Scriptura. (The real reason, of course, is that the Qur'an, if taken at face value, commands you to fight everyone, to beat women, and so on.) You would also say that he can't simply go to the Hadith, since he would end up doing all sorts of things that you disagree with. He can't simply go to the commentaries either, since the commentators give numerous interpretations of all kinds of things. He can't go to his imam either, since imams teach all kinds of different things because they follow all kinds of different scholars.
The result of your line of thinking is that an average Muslim can't know what to do in a given situation. Frankly, I find this view amazing. Muslims constantly brag that they know what to do in nearly every situation, because they have the example of Muhammad. But now, according to you, most Muslims--even those who study the Qur'an and the Hadith diligently--wouldn't know what to do.
Your response to my objection is to insult those who aren't privy to your deep methods of interpretation. But Yahya, if your methods of interpretation are useless to the vast majority of Muslims, what good are they? And if a person like me, who studies Islam all the time, can't understand your methodology because I'm "limited to a series of english books and articles on it," what good is it? According to you, people who speak other languages simply can't understand what Islam teaches! What good is Islam if the overwhelming majority of people in the world can't understand it even if we want to? Am I to conclude that only a select few, such as yourself, can understand Islam? Is that what you're telling me? Would you say that this is an elitist religion for special people such as yourself?
In my country (India) we have has several terrorist attacks including the recent Mumbai attacks, where the terrorists fired indiscriminately on the people in a railway station and attacked some famous landmarks. Some Islamic organizations have come out with declarations/fatwas etc that terrorism is unislamic and so on. All the terror attacks are happening on a pretext of avenging the "oppression" or "atrocities" of muslims in India. So, for the declarations/fatwas to make any sense or be of any use, they should explain how exactly then are muslims supposed to react to "oppression" or "atrocities" (even assuming that it is true)? Or these Islamic organizations have to declare that there is no oppression and that Muslims are willing to work peacefully in the humanist, secular democratic context that India strives to be (which the moderates in India keep saying anyway that they are fine with India).
The problem is, they cannot do either. If they have to spell out how Muslims are supposed to react to oppression, they will have to say that Muslims depending on the strength, need to take up arms against our state and people. On the other hand, if they say that they are perfectly fine with democracy of India, and that they are perfectly willing to be part of India, they are saying that they don’t need Shariah. All the so-called fatwas on terrorism do not deal with the actual issue at hand and as expected, they are of no use (the terrorists must be laughing at those fatwas against terrorism).
After the Mumbai attacks, there have been TV debates where several well known public personalities who are Muslims came on TV and condemned terrorism. Again, they stop short of declaring that the democracy, freedom, rights etc of India (or at least what India strives to be) is exactly what they want. Are the so-called moderate Muslims also willing to stick their neck out and with a shrill voice say that humanist democracy if fine with them and in fact the Islamic nations also should mend their ways and follow a humanist democracy where the state stands asserts universal human rights, dignity, freedom of speech/religious faith, rights/security/dignity etc on behalf of all citizens? Are there any Muslims out there willing to be die for reform? (like how the Christians were willing to be burned at the stake to stand for reforms). Otherwise, the stand of so-called moderate Muslims in the west and in places like India is just hog wash (as the comments by Muslims commentators in this very forum show – there is no real concern at all, but just seeking an escape route from blame or trying to justify and so on).
Yahya,
I just have to ask: How are most Muslims, who don't have the resources or the time to master your special methodology, supposed to know what to do in a given situation?
Well David, it's really quite simple, there is no sola scriptura in Islam, rather there are a group of people who must study the conventions and emerge as Scholars they approach the text using conventional methods of exegesis. Unfortunately for you, sound knowledge of Classical Arabic and Knowledge of the traditions are a requirement for this. We make no claims to have some kind of Holy Spirit guiding us in our exegesis (one which sends out varying messages seemingly).
If they open the Qur'an, they're told to beat their wives into submission. There's nothing in there about tapping them lightly with a small stick (as Sami says) or brushing them with green grass (as Adnan says).
As mentioned before, Islam cannot be approached with a sola scriptura fundamentalist mindset David, this is the downfall of your apologetic ministry which is that you constantly import your makeshift means of D.I.Y interpretation onto Islamic Hermeneutics, this is alike to the problem of eisegesis, I admit this is a fault of many Muslims when approaching Christianity too, however it doesn't justify a so called "Rationalist" such as yourself using such a means upon our text. Secondly such traditions which are used to interpret the Qur'an are to be found denoting what Sami has previously stated regarding the miswak, and also within the Qur'an, one may find the hermeneutical key of Adnan's explanation.
The Qur'an doesn't clarify. So a Muslim with a Qur'an only would have mutltiple options available to him. Let's be clear about your view here: The Qur'an doesn't give sufficient guidance.
According to our view David, Islam is both Qur'an and Tradition subsequently one may not derive absolute Islam using a Qur'an only paradigm. Secondly I'm not bothered with your excuses here, you are discussing with Yahya Hayder Seymour, not Hamza Abdul Malik and his Qur'an only Chronies.
Desperate for more insights (since they can't depend on the Qur'an to guide them), let's say that Muslims go to al-Bukhari. Here they find a woman being beaten until her skin turns green, and Muhammad doesn't rebuke the man who did it. Conclusion: It's acceptable to beat a woman until her skin turns green. But neither Sami nor Adnan would want a Muslim to conclude this; hence, the Qur'an combined with al-Bukhari isn't enough to give the correct interpretation. (And neither would the Qur'an combined with all sorts of other books.)
Again David, you attempt to reduce hundreds of years of Muslim Scholarship to Bukhari.... Wow, you really are on fire today David, when I say fire here I mean your rationality has burnt out.
We can apply this to all sorts of situations. A Muslim reading al-Bukhari, without Muslims like Bassam or Adnan adding their views, would conclude that he is supposed to kill apostates.
I would normally hope the average Muslim wouldn't have the audacity to consider himself an exegete or one who may derive Islamic Law, based upon a few abridged translations available to them. Again Professor Wood, stop importing your sola scriptura paradigm onto me and Muslims.... in fact this really highlights the danger of sola scriptura and the belief that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Your response is that "we have a means of balanced interpretation" by which you mean what? How is the average Muslim, living in, say, Africa or Southeast Asia, supposed to know what to do in a given situation? You've said that he can't simply go to the Qur'an, because you don't believe in Sola Scriptura. (The real reason, of course, is that the Qur'an, if taken at face value, commands you to fight everyone, to beat women, and so on.) You would also say that he can't simply go to the Hadith, since he would end up doing all sorts of things that you disagree with. He can't simply go to the commentaries either, since the commentators give numerous interpretations of all kinds of things. He can't go to his imam either, since imams teach all kinds of different things because they follow all kinds of different scholars.
One may refer to a Scholar in fact this is the natural course for a layperson to do, for not anyone off the street may pick up a lawbook and defend themselves in court or even pick up a medical text and go straight away into surgery, rather we rely upon those versed in these areas. Scholars have differences of opinion yes David, but other scholars may contest these opinions, however you in no way qualify as an exegete so your opinion of the laws of Apostasy really holds no ground.
The result of your line of thinking is that an average Muslim can't know what to do in a given situation.
Don't strawman argument please David, I have said that Scholars exist for knowing these things.
Frankly, I find this view amazing. Muslims constantly brag that they know what to do in nearly every situation, because they have the example of Muhammad. But now, according to you, most Muslims--even those who study the Qur'an and the Hadith diligently--wouldn't know what to do.
Again Don't Strawman me, you're meant to be a rationalist David, where did I say those who study the Qur'an and Hadith diligently can't know what to do?! I merely observed that you, who belong to a movement with a very...different means of scriptural exegesis, are in no position to interpret Muhammad's teachings.
Your response to my objection is to insult those who aren't privy to your deep methods of interpretation.
Haven't really insulted anyone, just pointed out that shallow fundamentalist christians shouldn't attempt to interpret Muslim texts of law especially.
But Yahya, if your methods of interpretation are useless to the vast majority of Muslims, what good are they?
Professor Wood, you christians crack me up, Nabeel in his debate with Shadid Lewis asserted that had all christians acted contrary to the teachings of christ or followed a bad interpretation of them, it would not render Christianity to be false. Now you go in blatant contradiction to him. Tell me are you interested in overcoming so called falsehood with your so called truth, if so you should engage with beliefs even if the majority of people don't hold them.
And if a person like me, who studies Islam all the time
hehe, if you say so.....
can't understand your methodology because I'm "limited to a series of english books and articles on it," what good is it? According to you, people who speak other languages simply can't understand what Islam teaches!
No Professor Wood, lets not dance around my point with a strawman.
What good is Islam if the overwhelming majority of people in the world can't understand it even if we want to?
They may understand it Wood, they just don't have a license to interpret law from the text without the correct tools.
Am I to conclude that only a select few, such as yourself, can understand Islam? Is that what you're telling me? Would you say that this is an elitist religion for special people such as yourself?
Nope, it's a religion for all mankind, it's not a God who is selectively Israel's personal God. Rather a God for all mankind, Rabb al-'Alameen (Lord of all the Worlds), and thats why Hajj is filled up with the diversity of all nations. It's not for the select elite, like the God your close associate Dr. James White believes in, rather a religion for all.
>> I'm glad you're not an exegete ..
This is a religious debate. If a critic of Christianity points out that the fact that Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace but a sword, the Christian is obligated to respond with what it really means, show the full context, other statements of Jesus, the overall life/message/doctrine of Jesus/NT etc. If the alternative explanation provided by the defender of Christianity makes more sense from the sources then the point is made. It does not hold water to just respond, 'hey, good that you are not an exegete'. In the context of a religious/theological debate, David Wood is well within his rights and quite appropriate to critique what is clearly the overall pattern and teaching from the Quran/Hadiths/early history, actions of Muhammad/companions etc and what is also well accepted/documented by most respected orthodox commentators. To counter the point, the defender of Islam needs to show the alternative explanation or an alternate methodology, and it needs to put to the debate and needs to show why that is a better. Until that time, the point remains.
>> rather there are a group of people who must study the conventions and emerge as Scholars they approach the text using conventional methods of exegesis
So, what according to them is the conclusion about universal human rights, dealing with those who renounce Islam and become vocal critics of Islam etc? What is their basis/methodology? How does it measure up to the basis/methodology of David Wood? That is the whole point of the debate, isn’t it?
Yahya…
[“the correct tools”]… whate do you mean Yahya? Taqqiya?... Silence is allways an answer...
Even when the others feel insultted by his wordes, if miss Yahya says he hasn’t insulted anyone he didn’t do ite… he’s the paradigm of other’s feelings… how egotistic and narcissistic… just like is pseudo-prophete (MCBUH)…
Can’t someone speake English at home and Arabic at work? Can’t some-one apply “sola scriptura” when dealing with Christian exegesis when the christian schoolars do so and non-“sola scriptura” when dealing with islamic studies who do so?
[“Don’t strawman me”]… Wow… that’s the morre inteligent argumment you were abble to find, time and time? Hohw academic and schollar is that?
[“other scholars may contest these opinions”] realy miss Yahya? According to your words you’re opinione is dogmaticaly true and the other are always wrong… so, eider the muslims schollars who disagree with you are being disquallified by you, or you’re not a schollar… hummm? Let me guess …
[“you in no way qualify as an exegete”]… amazzing… who says thate? A pseudo-muslim, and pseudo-half-philippinian who studies Islam in the UK? Wow…
No… Yahya… you don’t ned to be inspired… you just have to follow Muhammad’s (MCBUH) example and dictate whatever was more conveniente to him at a given point oph time
[“attempt to reduce hundreds of years of Muslim Scholarship to Bukhari”]… no miss Yahya… no othere opinion is more importante than Bukhari’s… you don’t listten the “above average” muslim cuoting many others schollars… tho you? why’s that? Maybe because they’re being feed up ine a such way by the so called muslim scholars of today…
[“one may not derive absolute Islam using a Qur'an only paradigm”]… Wow… is any muslim tradition which’s in contradicttion with the Qu’ran a muslim one? Lett me guesse… And if even you admitt that professor Wood quotes abunddantly Bukhari, how can you say he thinks islam is Qur’an only? Being a “strawman”, miss Yahya?
[“Islam cannot be approached with a sola scriptura fundamentalist mindset”]… who does so?… and by the way… wow… it doesn’t need to do so because it’s fundamentally fundamentalist in itself… like his narcissistique founder… “they don’t thinke I’m merciful? Then kile them”…
[“conventional methods of exegesis”]… right… those saime methods who have divided islam in different movements and sects?… those same and consistente methods thate allow “taqqiya”?… those same and coherente methods that allow a muslim schollar in Italy say thate islam is no beter than any other religion, and a different one in Saudi-Arabia (MIBBA) say thate the only true religion (???) is islam?
islam is a black-hole... atracts anything...
Miss strawman Yahya… LOOOOOL…
Yahya said: "Well David, it's really quite simple, there is no sola scriptura in Islam, rather there are a group of people who must study the conventions and emerge as Scholars they approach the text using conventional methods of exegesis."
Wow! "We don't place our trust in the Scripture; we place our trust in a group of people." That's not simple at all. You're saying that the average Muslim should go to scholars and ask them what to believe. The problem is that those scholars contradict each other left and right. So which scholar should a Muslim listen to? Presumably, a scholar that you agree with. The problem is that other apologists will say that Muslims should go to other scholars.
Yahya said: ". . . it doesn't justify a so called 'Rationalist' such as yourself using such a means upon our text."
I'm not a rationalist. But the problem remains. Without some final authority, all you can say is, "Well, go to our scholars, who will give you ten different interpretations of a single verse." Remember the question I was asking. I was asking how an average Muslim is supposed to know what to do. You've offered no answer to this question. All you've suggested is that he shouldn't go to the Qur'an or to the Hadith. Instead, he should go to scholars who will give him all kinds of inconsistent views. You've been no help at all to Muslims who want to know what to do.
Yahya said: "I would normally hope the average Muslim wouldn't have the audacity to consider himself an exegete or one who may derive Islamic Law, based upon a few abridged translations available to them. Again Professor Wood, stop importing your sola scriptura paradigm onto me and Muslims.... in fact this really highlights the danger of sola scriptura and the belief that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit."
Here you go again. "The Qur'an doesn't have the answers! The Hadith doesn't have the answers! Muslims who want to know what to do should go to Muslim scholars, who can't seem to agree on anything!" Yahya, how is the average Muslim supposed to know which scholar he should go to? Suppose I'm a Muslim, and I want to know how I should beat my wife. Which scholar should I go to? A Salafi scholar? Which one? A Shia scholar? Which one? Won't I get all kinds of different answers depending on which scholar I go to? Let me put this differently. Suppose a Muslim wants to know whether he should kill apostates. The Qur'an doesn't give the answer, and, according to you, the clear teachings of the Hadith aren't enough. Thus, he goes to his local Muslim scholar, who will tell him . . . whatever that scholar happens to believe. Don't you see, Yahya? The definition of truth can't be "whatever the scholars say," since the scholars contradict each other. Thus, your entire approach is flawed.
Yahya said: "David, you attempt to reduce hundreds of years of Muslim Scholarship to Bukhari.... Wow, you really are on fire today David, when I say fire here I mean your rationality has burnt out."
The point is that, according to you, it can't be reduced to anything. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE A MUSLIM CAN GO TO GET AN ANSWER AS TO WHAT HE SHOULD DO. THE QUR'AN FAILS TO GIVE THE ANSWER. THE HADITH FAILS TO GIVE THE ANSWER. THE COMMENTARIES FAIL TO GIVE THE ANSWER. AND THE SCHOLARS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. THUS, THERE ARE NO ANSWERS (ACCORDING TO YOU).
Yahya said: "Scholars have differences of opinion yes David, but other scholars may contest these opinions, however you in no way qualify as an exegete so your opinion of the laws of Apostasy really holds no ground."
Conclusion: An average Muslim can't know what to do or believe here. He can't decide based on the Qur'an (according to you); he can't decide based on the Hadith (according to you); he can't decide based on the commentaries (according to you); and the scholars are all over the place, which means he can't know from them. Poor Muslims. They have absolutely nowhere to go!
Yahya said: "Again Don't Strawman me, you're meant to be a rationalist David, where did I say those who study the Qur'an and Hadith diligently can't know what to do?! I merely observed that you, who belong to a movement with a very...different means of scriptural exegesis, are in no position to interpret Muhammad's teachings."
Why do you keep calling me a rationalist? Do you know what a rationalist is? It's a person who believes that truth can only come from contemplation, and that looking to the world for facts will only lead us astray. I'm much closer to empiricism than to rationalism.
You say that you're only claiming that I'm "in no position to interpret Muhammad's teachings." And I'm claiming that, according to you, no one's in a position to interpret Muhammad's teachings, because you have no authority to point to as the final world on an issue. According to you, I can't even investigate Islam, since I don't have the deep resources that are available to you. Do you have any clue how shocking this is? You're saying that no one can understand Islam without reading every source and studying under every scholar! According to you, even if I memorized the Qur'an and all of Sahih Sittah, I still wouldn't understand Islam! Please answer me: Why would God give, as his final revelation, something that so few people can even dream of understanding?
Yahya said: "Professor Wood, you christians crack me up, Nabeel in his debate with Shadid Lewis asserted that had all christians acted contrary to the teachings of christ or followed a bad interpretation of them, it would not render Christianity to be false. Now you go in blatant contradiction to him."
Do you understand what a contradiction is? I would be contradicting Nabeel if he said X and I said not-X. Nabeel's point was that even if Christians fail to live up to Jesus' teachings, this doesn't show that Christianity is false. (He's entirely correct here.) He's not saying anything even remotely close to "the average person can't even hope to know what Jesus commands" or "we have no final authority in Christianity." The implication of your claim is that an average Muslim has nowhere to go if he wants to learn about Islam, and that people like me can't understand Islam, no matter how hard we try. Where's the contradiction? (I see you're getting desperate now.)
Yahya said: "They may understand it Wood, they just don't have a license to interpret law from the text without the correct tools."
And since the vast majority of Musims don't have the correct tools, they can't interpret the Qur'an. This means that they can't know what they're supposed to do. Again, they can't simply go to the local scholar, because that local scholar may be right or wrong (and the person doesn't know which one). This is what happens when you place your faith in the views of mere men, my friend.
Yahya said: "Nope, it's a religion for all mankind, it's not a God who is selectively Israel's personal God. Rather a God for all mankind, Rabb al-'Alameen (Lord of all the Worlds), and thats why Hajj is filled up with the diversity of all nations. It's not for the select elite, like the God your close associate Dr. James White believes in, rather a religion for all."
Ha! Now you're just dodging the issue! It's a religion for all? Is it a religion for me? You've already said that I can't understand it! Is it a religion for an average person living in some town or village somewhere? They have far less access to Muslim sources than I do, and so they can understand even less than me! Indeed, according to you, there are only a few people on the planet who can even hope to understand what Islam teaches. And since the rest of us don't know who these people are (that is, we can't distinguish the people who are right from the people who are wrong, since there's no ultimate authority to decide the issue), we can't even hope to understand the religion that's for everyone!
Wow! I guess I have plenty of material for my next blog post. You've declared that the Qur'an is insufficient as a guide for human beings, and you've ridiculed those who would look to it as the final word on various issues. You've mocked those who would go to al-Bukhari to learn what they should do. You've said that we must place our trust in the fallible opinions of fallible human beings to know the truth about God (since the Qur'an and the Hadith aren't enough). You've declared that, if I want to know what Muhammad taught, there's no book I can go to that will give me a decisive answer. And you've repeatedly blasted Christians because we agree on a final authority for belief and practice! Shame on us!
Simply because the Jews engage in a rebellion against the Romans resulting in their own loss and the destruction of the temple, did not meant that the Christians, as a religious minority, had to repeat the same mistakes of the Jews. Instead Christians not wanting to fall into the same trap, they painted their religion as a pacifist faith.
This is why we have pacifist teachings in side the New Testament such as, submit to the Roman governor and emperor (Romans 13 and 1 Peter 3) and teachings like, turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39).
Just on a side note, when Jesus is struck on the face before the high priest by one of the temple’s police, instead of turning the other cheek, he defends his dignity. “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong…” (Jh 18:22-3).
Hence, when Christ’s returns he will engage all the enemies of God in a fierce battle resulting in the liberation of Israel under the Roman occupation within their own generations. Paul speaks of Jesus’ return will be 'like a thief in the night' while some are still alive (I Thess 4.15 and 5.2).
In Matthew’s Gospel we are told “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place” (24:34). What are 'all these things? They are the end of the world and the return of Jesus.
In conclusion, Christians adopted a pacifist approach because they believed that the world would end and Christ would return as a military ruler within one generation. In the mean time they are to simply submit to the governing authorities of the day. Now, we are told all these things will happen 'in this generation'; that is, before the last person living at the time of Jesus dies. This plainly did not happen and the time is long past when it could have happened.
The New Testament scholar, Wolfhart Pannenberg, who believed that Jesus was both God and Man, states,
“There is no doubt that Jesus erred when he announced that God’s Lordship would begin in his own generation (Matt. 23:36; 16:28; Mark. 13:30 and parallels; cf. Matt. 10:23). The end of the world did not begin in Jesus’ generation and also not in the generation of his disciples… Here we stand before the notorious problem of the delay of the Parousia, the problem of the two thousand years that have since elapsed without the arrival of the end of the world and God’s universal rule.” (Jesus – God and Man, pg 226, 1968).
I agree with Pannenberg this early Christian belief was a mistake however I would not attribute this mistake to Jesus but to his early followers who misinterpreted his teachings. Finally to say that the historical Jesus was a pacifist simply because the New Testament writers portray him as such, I believe, would be a fallacy.
Nazam said: "In conclusion, Christians adopted a pacifist approach because they believed that the world would end and Christ would return as a military ruler within one generation."
You have a knack for making claims without providing any evidence whatsoever. What's the connection between thinking the end is near and pacifism? You haven't provided one. That is, you have to show that a person who thinks the end will come in twenty years is more likely to be pacifistic than someone who thinks the end will come in two thousand years. Wouldn't it be just the opposite? Wouldn't a person who believes the end is a long way off say, "Well, we have to last two thousand years, so we'd better get along with everyone." It's as if you make these claims without really thinking about what you're saying.
So again, please provide the link between eschatology and pacifism. As things stand now, you're saying, "The Christians believed X and they believed Y; therefore, they believed X because they believed Y." And any first semester logic student would recognize this as a fallacy.
You say that Christians would have learned a lesson from the Jewish revolt. Sorry, but Christianity started well before the Jewish revolt, and it was already pacifistic. So your claim is absurd, isn't it? Did the Christians have time machines as well?
And here we have additional evidence that you're wrong. The Jews revolted. The Jews who converted to Christianity didn't revolt. Why not? What made these Jews different? They were different because they believed in the teachings of Jesus, not because they believed the end was near.
Nazam, what you're doing is clear to everyone. Islam teaches violence. You're embarrassed by the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Muhammad, so you're trying to drag Jesus down to the level of Muhammad in order to make yourself feel better about your religion. This is despicable, and you're guilty of attacking the character of Jesus Christ. You're ashamed of your religion, so you want everyone else's religion to be like yours. You're desperate, and everyone knows it my friend.
1) Fernando, your posts are filled with immature responses such as "Miss Yahya".... really demonstrates your intellectual capabilities there! Secondly, I've come to find your posts on this blog to mainly target my posts with some kind of odd babbling non-sense, so since it's not my blog and I have no intention in discussing with you whatsoever, perhaps you could allow David and I to have an A-B Conversation and C yourself out of it.
2) In Response to David Wood.
Wow! "We don't place our trust in the Scripture; we place our trust in a group of people." That's not simple at all.
Ironically enough Scriptures come down to us through the transmission of people Mr. Wood! Therefore we take Oral Traditions from the Prophet in this regard too, in light of the teachings of the Prophet, we interpret the Qur'an. Perhaps if you were to take some elementary university classes in Islam, you would be aqqainted with the concept of Hadith and their significance in Islam, for example using a paradigm familiar to you, the Hadiths to Muslims are like explanatory letters found in the New Testament Canon are to Christians. (To use an example from Jay Smith himself). Hence in Islamic Hermeneutics, Hadith or Sunnah form a very crucial role.
You're saying that the average Muslim should go to scholars and ask them what to believe.
A Problem you as a recent and not very well versed student of Islam seem to have David, is understanding the fine line between Theology and Jurisprudence, in Key Doctrinal Issues, there can be no blind obeyance of Scholars. However in Jurisprudence which relates to Law, and the carrying out of that Law, it is required for one to refer to a Jurist naturally.
The problem is that those scholars contradict each other left and right. So which scholar should a Muslim listen to? Presumably, a scholar that you agree with. The problem is that other apologists will say that Muslims should go to other scholars.
Two Points Here:
1) Yes, Islam has a varying amount of Scholars each having a unique perspective, however this does not render Islam to be invalid. One of the interpretations is bound to be sound.
2) You yourself seem to have no problem when it comes to the two varying dogmas of your friends William Lane Craig and James White (who happens to denounce pretty much every christian who is non-Calvinist as being misguided).
I'm not a rationalist.
Ok, fair dues. My Mistake.
But the problem remains. Without some final authority, all you can say is, "Well, go to our scholars, who will give you ten different interpretations of a single verse." Remember the question I was asking. I was asking how an average Muslim is supposed to know what to do.
The Muslim is to refer to a Jurist for Law David.
You've offered no answer to this question. All you've suggested is that he shouldn't go to the Qur'an or to the Hadith.
I never asserted such, this is your entry of your interpretation of my words into my mouth. I asserted that they should refer to the Qur'an and Hadith in light of Scholar's commentary. All this has boiled down to YOU not being qualified as a Jurist or one who can derive Jurisprudence.
Instead, he should go to scholars who will give him all kinds of inconsistent views. You've been no help at all to Muslims who want to know what to do.
Muslims who want to know what to do, will approach Scholars, they will not be on your blog thats for damned sure David. Secondly they sure as hell won't follow your twisted interpretation of Vigilante Penal Code for Apostasy.
Here you go again. "The Qur'an doesn't have the answers! The Hadith doesn't have the answers! Muslims who want to know what to do should go to Muslim scholars, who can't seem to agree on anything!"
Fallacious Reasoning, the Scholars agree on most rulings David, you are creating more strawmen here than a Voodoo Convention! I never said the Qur'an doesn't have answers, nor that the hadith don't, I argued that one must contextualise by utilising both.
Yahya, how is the average Muslim supposed to know which scholar he should go to? Suppose I'm a Muslim, and I want to know how I should beat my wife. Which scholar should I go to? A Salafi scholar? Which one? A Shia scholar? Which one? Won't I get all kinds of different answers depending on which scholar I go to?
Depends on what kind of Muslim you are obviously, naturally if I am a Coptic Catholic, I won't go to Dr. White for an explanation of Doctrine.
Let me put this differently. Suppose a Muslim wants to know whether he should kill apostates. The Qur'an doesn't give the answer, and, according to you, the clear teachings of the Hadith aren't enough.
David, are you preparing a stable for a nativity play or something? With all strawmen you're gathering up here, we should see enough to fill your whole church. I never once claimed the teachings of the hadith aren't clear enough, I asserted you only have access to an abridged english translation of the hadith and know nothing of the historical context involved.
Conclusion: An average Muslim can't know what to do or believe here. He can't decide based on the Qur'an (according to you); he can't decide based on the Hadith (according to you); he can't decide based on the commentaries (according to you); and the scholars are all over the place, which means he can't know from them. Poor Muslims. They have absolutely nowhere to go!
David, you really must be a slow reader when it comes to Islam, much slower than I had previously thought to be honest, and I swear, I mean no offense when I say this. However, Muslims don't consider Fiqhi differences to be crucial to Salvation, Legal Jurisprudence doesn't work that way, it's the Theology that matters.
You say that you're only claiming that I'm "in no position to interpret Muhammad's teachings." And I'm claiming that, according to you, no one's in a position to interpret Muhammad's teachings, because you have no authority to point to as the final world on an issue. According to you, I can't even investigate Islam, since I don't have the deep resources that are available to you. Do you have any clue how shocking this is? You're saying that no one can understand Islam without reading every source and studying under every scholar!
I'm claiming that no one can derive Islamic Law without at least knowing Classical Arabic and having access to the classical opinions, nothing else David.
According to you, even if I memorized the Qur'an and all of Sahih Sittah, I still wouldn't understand Islam!
1) It's Sihah Sittah, not sahih sittah, not being padantic but just to correct you for future notice.
2) You would be able to understand Islam in this case, however memorizing these would require learning fus'ha Arabic, and years of study. It still wouldn't qualify you as a Legal Jurist in Islamic Law nor as an exegete of the Qur'an.
Please answer me: Why would God give, as his final revelation, something that so few people can even dream of understanding?
It's easy to understand the Qur'an and it's theological guidelines, however Jurisprudence requires one to refer to a Jurist skilled in interpreting the Qur'an and Hadith. This requires a knowledge of Historical context also.
And since the vast majority of Musims don't have the correct tools, they can't interpret the Qur'an. This means that they can't know what they're supposed to do.
For Law, we have Scholars again, for Theology it's clear.
Again, they can't simply go to the local scholar, because that local scholar may be right or wrong (and the person doesn't know which one). This is what happens when you place your faith in the views of mere men, my friend.
David, this point is meak differences of opinion in Law have nothing to do with Salvation again.
Ha! Now you're just dodging the issue! It's a religion for all? Is it a religion for me? You've already said that I can't understand it!
For the last time can you stop Strawmanning me! I have made clear that there is a difference between understanding Islam and deriving Islamic Law rulings.
Is it a religion for an average person living in some town or village somewhere? They have far less access to Muslim sources than I do, and so they can understand even less than me!
Of course it is, in fact most Muslim youths I've known do know substantially more than you David. They may not have read Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq or Tabari's history but they still know more about core beliefs and the science of ahadith etc.
Indeed, according to you, there are only a few people on the planet who can even hope to understand what Islam teaches. And since the rest of us don't know who these people are (that is, we can't distinguish the people who are right from the people who are wrong, since there's no ultimate authority to decide the issue), we can't even hope to understand the religion that's for everyone!
Not really Mr. Wood, repeating it several times and claiming I asserted this doesn't mean I did.
Wow! I guess I have plenty of material for my next blog post.
Why is that? has Robert Spencer released a new book or endorsed a new scare mongering film?
You've declared that the Qur'an is insufficient as a guide for human beings
Not in the slightest.
and you've ridiculed those who would look to it as the final word on various issues.
Nope I've just ridiculed Qur'an only "Muslims".
You've mocked those who would go to al-Bukhari to learn what they should do.
Not at all, I admire Bukhari's criteria, I just made clear that just because you have access to some english translations of Bukhari doesn't make you able to tell muslims how to interpret the legal system of Islam, and secondly that it is just one collection of hadith from amongst many.
You've said that we must place our trust in the fallible opinions of fallible human beings to know the truth about God (since the Qur'an and the Hadith aren't enough).
Not at all....
You've declared that, if I want to know what Muhammad taught, there's no book I can go to that will give me a decisive answer.
Not at all...
And you've repeatedly blasted Christians because we agree on a final authority for belief and practice! Shame on us!
Yes Professor Wood A.K.A The Strawman.
David,
The debate with Yahya did happen,yes?
Miss Yahya... wow...
I never imagined you hould read my commentes... Are they full of ["babbling non-sense"] as you say? Really...??? And do you guesse whie? Because I want to be a mirror of what your owne words looks like to a well formed Christian... A bucket of misses chances to prove you know what you're talking... I have found a perfect and cleare denieall of your own wordes in the teachings of Sheikh Khaled El-Gendy, the weel renowned Al-Azhar University teacher... so? Do you really think your positiones really have any true or importance... they're just misses...
That's why I call you ["Miss"]... I'me in no way, or form calling you a polite girl, but a bad aiming persone...
And, Miss Yahya... sorrie by my poore english... but no... I feel completelie free to say what I want, even when you trie to silence me... wow... you're really folling Muhammad's exemples (MCBUH)... "they don't agree with me? Then silence them!!!"
I founded amaizing when you said that to understand the Qu'ran one should know the texts thar, in many cases, followed it in more than hundred years to accomodat it to the peculiar interests of the islamic governants...
Poor Yahya...
David you claim i am insulting yet look at your brother in Christ, Fernando, who is actually doing all the insulting. The lovely Christian double standard, whats more funny is that i never insulted.
And anyway, Nabeel whats happened? I know you read my posts, do you accept or not? I mean when we talked on paltalk you talked so much saying you would debate me anywhere & anytime, so stick to your words, I am asking for a debate on Human rights and Christianity since you like to argue on human rights as if to say its in full agreement with Christianity.
So what is it? April, London, will you stick to your words or were you simply making an empty bluff?
No Sami... no insulted intended...
Cooting Yahya... I dind't made any insult... and now you'll have to agree with me, because i'am saying so...
Really: my religion forbides me not to love my fellow beings... more: it sais lo love anyone, including those who consider me their enimies... if my irony is being taken as an insult, i'll try to be more carefull...
but, Sami... WHERE DID I MADE A SINGLE INSULT? Could you show me?
Calling Yahya Miss? I expleined whate I was saying: he is MISSing (take the gerundium termination and you'll have the noun MISS... or so expleined my english teacher, who's a muslim friend of mine) allways the chance to manifest he understands christianity... and then tries to silence others who, in his oppinion, don't understand islam
And I resume my points in, I wope, more clear manner:
1) It's funny, real funny, to read Yahya showing that he completely misunderstand what christianity (as a faith, a tradition, a science that can be studied) is, and trying, starting from is erroneous point of views, builde an argumentation... it's like trying to build a house without waals...
2) It's amaizing to see the astonishing double standars of Yahya... (and I never said this from other muslim contributer to this blog...)... and then he calls others (and that is a reall insult...) things like "Strawman" (do you know what that word means in phillipinian? I, being a philipinian, say here: "dagami-lalaki" is homonomy to "lyier" or more ashammefull "mad"); "rationalist"...
3) It's fantastic to see the enormous intelectual relativism Yahya shows when trying to make arguments... it, really looks like, he's writing them just to defend what is impossible to defend... if he was more careful, like you Sami, I wouldn't be making funny commnets... that I'll try not to make in the future...
Sami... No insulted inteded... believe me...
Sami,
You, Yahya, and Adnan seem to be obsessed with catching me in some inconsistency. But whenever you say you've found one, you're simply wrong.
You say I'm using double standards because I pointed out that, after Nabeel made a perfectly thoughtful and straightforward comment, you went on an insulting tirade against his religion. "Aha!" you say. "You didn't rebuke Fernando! Look at the double standards!"
I hadn't even read Fernando's comments (I still haven't). But even if I had, these two situations are quite different. I have no clue who Fernando is. But I know who you are, and I know that you're trying to set up a debate with Nabeel. Setting up debates goes much more smoothly if the debaters get along, yet as soon as Nabeel says a few thoughtful words, you put out an extremely sarcastic series of emails, mocking his religion without accurately representing it.
It's up to you how you address people. But don't expect everyone to jump at the chance to debate you when you go overboard in your responses. And don't pretend that when I point out that you're being offensive to someone you should be trying to get along with, I'm somehow approving of any Christian who's ever made an insulting comment on my blog.
BTW, did Nabeel say that he'd be willing to debate you on human rights, any time, any place?
David, first of all i havent insulted anyone, so your simply repeating a fantasy you made up, and you have yet to show me the insults, there was not insulting from me, you just try to poison the well to run from the facts i brought up, so just say ohhhhh look he insulted. And as for mocking your religion, i didnt mock, i brought the facts up, show me one factual mistake, oh waitttt you cant. David you should have seen the PM convo with my and Nabeel, then you wouldnt be so hasty to say im insulting him, your own friend mocked and attacked my religion during our paltalk convo, so your friend can handle this.
Number 2, Nabeel said he would debate me anywhere and anytime, on any topic, so yes that includes human rights and Christianity. anyways i dont understand why your so relunctant to let Nabeel debate this topic, whats wrong? perhaps its because you know Nabeel will fall apart in trying to defend this topic, i dont blame you.
now since Nabeel doesnt seem up for it, how about you debate me on this topic David (very dissapointed in you Nabeel, your not a man of your word, just hot talk). oh is that an insult too? ah yes, when i say that it becomes an insult, but when Nabeel says similar things to me in private pm on paltalk thats ok? lol give me a break.
I do not want no 2 on 2's on this topic, just a nice 1 on 1, or if you would like, perhaps you and Nabeel can have a 2vs1, :).
Sami,
I know that the crowd you hang out with talks like you do, so you don't understand that other people address each other in a somewhat more respectful manner, especially if you're trying to line up a debate and most people don't want to debate someone who communicates the way you do.
Look at the things you say. You referred to our God as "your genocidal homocidal God."
Do you really think this isn't insulting? I know that you're going to say something like, "But he did kill entire groups of people." Well, so did Allah during the flood and other events. So you wouldn't think I'm being insulting if I referred to Allah as a psychopathic, evil, murderous, bloodthirsty, deceptive, evil being? Would you really say that this is a perfectly acceptable way to communicate? Muhammad slept with a nine-year-old girl. Are you saying it's okay for people to go around calling Muhammad a pedophile? This isn't insulting to your religion at all, right?
You said: "your Bible tells you not to allow unbelievers into your home, nor to wish them God speed."
Show me this in context please. You seem to have a problem with interpreting even the clearest passages.
"i also haveeeeee a really good bet that human rights is against eternally damning someone to a lake of tortorous fire!"
How many times are you going to condemn your own religion? Or have you forgotten that Allah will burn our skin off, then replace the skin so he can keep burning it off over and over again? I'm about to do a massive YouTube series on all the different ways you've condemned and mocked Islam.
"offcourse your the one who imports tolerance into Christianity."
So when Paul says, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him," this is intolerant? Your hatred for Christianity has destroyed your ability to interpret the Bible correctly.
You say: "orrr oh wait i remember, thats not wrong because it was limited to a specific geographical area and specific people, yesssss yes."
Here you mock us as if we're inventing things. We're simply telling you what the Bible says. But let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that it's absolutely absurd to think that God would change his commands, right? So if I can show you where Allah changed his commands even once, you've condemned Islam again, no?
You said: "you guys are marcionites." Do you have any clue how insulting this is? Marcionites believed in all sorts of gods, and they believed that Yahweh was an evil god, a completely different being from the God of the New Testament. So according to you, we call Yahweh evil. Is that really what we believe? (Note the difference between a single God who is free to establish different rules for different periods, and multiple gods who are at odds with each other.) And yet you see nothing insulting here.
You say: "i also have a good bet that human rights would be against texts that call the Jews the son of the devil."
Here's a pop quiz, Sami. Jesus was referring to (a) the Jews that he was talking to, or (b) all Jews? (Note: Jesus was a Jew, as were all of the Apostles.) You're so desperate that you can't even be honest about a text. (BTW, would you say that human rights would favor expelling Jews from the Arabian peninsula, or dreaming of the day when even the rocks will cry out, "There's a Jew hiding behind me! Kill him!" or placing the sins of Muslims on Jews in hell? Once again, you've condemned Islam.)
Finally, you say that Nabeel is dodging you. I have no clue whether he's even read your most recent post (he's in med school, you know). When I talked to him about the topic, I said that, since I'm interested in the topic, we should do a two-on-two. You rejected this idea, and proceeded to insult Nabeel, without even finding out what his answer is.
Well, I doubt you'll be having anymore debates with Nabeel. I'm going to ask him, and every other apologist I know, to stop debating you until you grow up and learn how to communicate without insulting everyone. (You still get to debate Sam, though.) You are now officially on Nadir Ahmed status. See how far you get when you've been blacklisted. Have fun writing articles for your website.
Fernando,
I haven't read your comments, but as I was scanning down I saw this:
"It's amaizing to see the astonishing double standars of Yahya... (and I never said this from other muslim contributer to this blog...)... and then he calls others (and that is a reall insult...) things like "Strawman" (do you know what that word means in phillipinian? I, being a philipinian, say here: "dagami-lalaki" is homonomy to "lyier" or more ashammefull "mad"); "rationalist"..."
In Yahya's defense, "Strawman" and "rationalist" aren't insults. To say that someone is building a strawman is to say that he's attacking a position that his opponent doesn't really hold. So at worst Yahya was accusing me of committing a fallacy. I wasn't, but this isn't the sort of insults we're talking about. I'm not a rationalist either, but I don't think Yahya intended this as an insult. Historically, rationalists have included people like Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz, etc. (i.e. some of the greatest philosophers in history).
lol lol David your too funny, you call my prophet a pedophile and you dont think thats insulting? who in the world are you trying to kid?
go on put me on the black-list, it just makes me laugh, and dont bother trying any debates with the group in London neither because 2 can play that game.
bring it on buddy.
Sami,
When did I call Muhammad a pedophile? I simply asked you whether this would be an insult or not. I think it would be an insult, which is why I don't say it. You, on the other hand, insult others in the most offensive ways imaginable, and you don't even understand that you're being insulting.
As for the debates in London, they're off. The March series is off as well (though you're still free to debate Sam Shamoun, of course). I'll stick to debating here in the U.S. In fact, I'd like to get back to debating atheists, and this is the perfect opportunity.
Good luck in the future.
Sami,
David hasn't called Muhammad a pedophile. In fact he has articles where he says people should refrain from calling Muhammad a pedophile. (a position with which I personally disagree)
David asked u the question here that IF he would call your prophet a pedophile, wouldn't that be insulting to you.
But speaking about debating: I would like to debate ANY muslim on the topic "Muhammad in the Bible" ANY (set) place ANY (set) time. Becaus ethe Qur'an claims that the people of the Book recognize Muhammad as they recognize their own sons. Well if he is that obviously present in the Bible, then I would like a Muslim, ANY muslim, to show me where.
Nakdimon,
Adnan Rashid in London would probably be willing to debate you on that topic. I was going to debate him on it, but plans have changed. It's a favorite topic of his, though. You can see him debate Jay Smith on this issue here on AM.
Sami -
I will consider debating you if you can do just one simple thing:
Show a shred of proof that I said I would debate you on any topic, any time, anywhere.
Fact is, I generally don't make those kinds of statements. It would mean I'd be willing to debate you at the bottom of the pacific ocean (i.e. anywhere).
But more practically, I doubt I'd ever agree to debating "any" topic. I don't know enough about every topic in the world to sign a blank check on debate preparedness.
You say it was during our paltalk debate? Well, I have the whole thing recorded. I'll send it to you if you want. If I'm wrong, and I did say these things you say I said, please show me and I'll graciously apologize and reconsider.
You say I insulted your religion during a private message? Please produce your evidence. There were no such insults, or anything that could even be considered insults in our private messages. I recall that all the communication we had on paltalk was pretty friendly on both sides.
No more rhetoric, no more insults. Just produce your evidence or stop making accusations.
Sami--
Upon reading David's post, it seems you have been blacklisted. Consequently, debating you is going to be out of the question.
But I'll still owe you an apology if you can actually provide some proof that I said those things.
If you can't find that proof, I think an apology will still be owed, but not from me. Since it's doubtful that you'd do that, it would at least be proper for you to stop making unsubstantiated accusations.
Sami said:
And as for mocking your religion, i didnt mock, i brought the facts up, show me one factual mistake, oh waitttt you cant.
Earlier, Sami said:
you believe an innocent man named Jesus, was tortured, and murdered. this is one of the worst crimes under human rights, yet you believe this act to be your foundation, and you praise this act and even celebrate it, you even carry the criminal symbol on your chest! so plz dont try to kid anyone here about human rights.
Sami, I have attempted to be as kind toward you as is humanly possible--maybe even supernaturally possible--and you would have to testify to this. Even when you flamed me horribly for posting an e-mail from a Special Forces soldier (btw, he's home now, so I can tell you: HE'S A DOCTOR, and he treated, for free, THOUSANDS of Muslims during his time of deployment, while the Taliban did all they could to try to kill him), I did not respond in kind. Yet, to be honest, your constantly immature behavior, as exemplified once again of late, truly makes it impossible to interact with you on any meaningful level. Look at the above citations. I know (for I have been one who has explained it to you) that you have been told, repeatedly, what the Bible says about the VOLUNTARY giving of His life by the Lord Jesus. If you would allow the NT to speak for itself--something you demand for the Qur'an--you would know that the giving of the life of Jesus is the free decision of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To even make a connection, as you have done, based upon your ignoring the NT teaching, is again an example of how you simply do not hear, you do not learn. When someone insists upon consistently ignoring the replies given to him, just what is the use of engaging that person? Can you explain that?
james
Dr. White,
Hello its Bassam Zawadi with you.
Can you show me statements uttered by Jesus in the Gospels that indicate that he voluntarily and willingly with no "peer pressure" offered himself as a sacrifice. This is not the impression that I get from some of the statements that I see Jesus allegedly uttered in the Gospels.
Thanks,
Bassam
Dr. White,
Hello its Bassam Zawadi with you.
Can you show me statements uttered by Jesus in the Gospels that indicate that he voluntarily and willingly with no "peer pressure" offered himself as a sacrifice. This is not the impression that I get from some of the statements that I see Jesus allegedly uttered in the Gospels.
Thanks,
Bassam
Bassam,
I'm not sure how it could be any clearer:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father" (John 10:17-18).
David, I'm afraid that it doesn't seem that clear to me. The only thing that the passage states is that Jesus will lay down his life for us and that he has authority to do so.
I don't see how this indicates whether he will be laying down his life "willingly" or "unwillingly".
To me, the "please pass this cup" doesn't seem like willingness on Jesus' part.
Bassam,
He says he lays his life down "on his own initiative". That's synonymous for "willingly". They mean the same thing.
"He says he lays his life down "on his own initiative". That's synonymous for "willingly". They mean the same thing."
I don't find the words "my own initiative" or "willingly" in the Greek.
Check your self
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=10&v=17&t=KJV#conc/18
Jesus appears to be speaking about hiw ability and power to lay it down, not really his willingness.
It won't help to simply post a link to a lexicon which provides the various shades of meaning a word may have, but doesn't provide any data to help determine which specific meaning is applicable, is most appropriate, in any given text. Normally, that is the job of commentaries.
If you wanted to know whether Wood's point is true that Jesus freely volunteered to die you should have started at verse 17 since this would have helped you see that "of myself" is synonymous with "of my own accord," "of my own initiative":
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again."
What Jesus means is that the Father loves the Son because the Son delights to carry out his will. It isn't something that he is compelled to do but something he chooses to do in perfect accord with the Father.
So the reason given in this verse shows why the following translations are more correct in translating the Greek of John 10:18:
"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." NIV
"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative." NASB
"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." ESV
"No one takes it away from Me. On the contrary, I lay it down voluntarily. [I put it from Myself.]" Amplified Bible
"No one takes my life from me. I give it up willingly!" CEV
"No one takes it away from me; I give my own life freely." NCV
"This is why the Father loves me: because I freely lay down my life. And so I am free to take it up again." The Message
It is true the revolt that took placed by the Jews against the Roman occupation, which ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem, happened in the years 66 to 70 CE. Christianity had already begun by this time. However there were several other revolts before 66 CE, including before the writings of the New Testament documents, thus my original point still remains.
According to the Jewish scholar Reuven Firestone the New Testament documents emerged in a historical environment that was dominated by the political and military might of the Roman Empire. For this reason Christians not being in the position to overthrow and take over the rulership from the Roman rulers, a pacifist approach was adopted (pg 313, Blackwell Companion to the Quran).
However the pacifism of the New Testament was understood only to be temporary and short lived until Jesus returns as a warrior king who would then overthrow the existing powers of the World and rule the nations with an iron rod (Revelation 19). Jesus was expected to return within one generation (Mt 24:34). This plainly never happen since the last person to have ever lived at the time of Jesus has died long ago. As quoted in my previous post, the Trinitarian scholar Wolfhart Pannenberg has referred to the Parousia prediction as an error and a tenacious problem in our existing New Testament books.
Post a Comment