Here is a fascinating extract from Professor Abdel Haleem’s discussion of The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29). I have copied and pasted the first three pages. If you would like to read the whole article just leave a request in the comments below and I will email you the PDF.
The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State
M.A.S. Abdel Haleem
SOAS, University of London
‘I swear by God that if they refuse to pay me even a camel-halter which they used to pay to the Prophet, I will fight them for it. ’1
The jizya verse has been the basis of a huge amount of writing by Muslims in Islamic law and Qur ’anic exegesis, and by non-Muslim scholars writing about Islam. It continues to be used by some academics, members of the media, and anti-Islamic propagandists to denigrate Islam and its treatment of non-Muslims, especially the ‘People of the Book ’.2
This article aims to examine the verse afresh, using close linguistic analysis and paying due regard to the linguistic and historical contexts of the verse with all its elements, as well as the style of the Qur ’an and what it says outside the confines of this verse. Such analysis will prove that the picture that has been made of this verse, based on various historical contingencies, both by Muslim exegetes and jurists and non-Muslim writers, is post-Qur ’anic, inaccurate and far removed from the actual picture as given in the Qur ’an itself.
The jizya verse (Q. 9:29) has been translated by Arberry as follows:3
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.
Such literal translations make it more difficult for a reader to recover the real meaning of the Arabic text. Beyond this initial hurdle, there is the interpretation of crucial elements of this verse. I have counted the following eight points in this one verse which have given rise to misunderstandings and which I will discuss phrase by phrase as follows:
1. Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day ( qā talū’ lladhī na lā yuʾ minū na bi’ llā hi wa-lā bi’ l-yawmi’ l-ā khir)
For reasons we explain later, even some Muslim exegetes have taken this phrase literally and set out to explain how the People of the Book do not believe in God and the Last Day: that the Jews and Christians associate others with God, for example seeing Ezra and Jesus as ‘sons of God’.4 They also explain that Jews and Christians do not really believe in the physical resurrection5 and therefore cannot be said to believe in the Last Day.6 Such explanations run counter to what we know of Qur’anic style. The Qur’an uses belief in God and the Last Day to emphasise a point – if you truly believe in God and the Last Day, you should refrain from such and such, or do such and such. This is found, for example, in instructions advocating good treatment of women in divorce situations (Q. 2:232, Q. 8:41, Q. 65:2). It is also very common in the ḥadīth, for example, ‘Let him who believes in God and the Last Day not harm his neighbour’ and ‘Let him who believes in God and the Last Day, say what is good or keep silent’.7 In Q. 5:81, in connection with the People of the Book, the Qur’an says, If they had believed in God, the Prophet and in what was sent down to him they would never have allied themselves with the disbelievers, but most of them are rebels. This does not negate the belief of the People of the Book in God, the Prophet and scripture; but rather simply states that they do not act on such belief because they are rebellious. Commenting on the jizya verse, Abū Ḥayyān states, ‘they are so described because their way [of acting] is the way of those who do not believe in God’.8 In any case, there is nothing in the Qur’an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone.
2. Do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden ( wa-lā yuḥ arrimū na mā ḥ arrama’ llā hu wa-rasū luhu)
Many exegetes have interpreted this phrase as asserting that what God and His Messenger have forbidden includes such things as eating pork and drinking wine. However, this cannot be correct since Islamic law does not require the People of the Book to refrain from these, and indeed Muslims should not interfere with them in these matters: any Muslim who pours away their wine or forcibly appropriates it is liable to pay compensation.9 Other explanations given by Abū Ḥayyān are that the People of the Book do not forbid lying about God, for instance, saying, ‘We are God’s sons and beloved’ (Q. 5:18); or saying, ‘ Nobody will enter the Gardens unless they are Jews or Christians’ (Q. 2:111), and that what God has forbidden them means usury and unlawful consumption of the property of gentiles (Q. 3:75).10 However, these actions do not constitute grounds for fighting the People of the Book.
The context of this phrase in the jizya verse requires that the thing being forbidden is something that the People of the Book ought not to be doing according to their belief in God and their own prophets, but must also connect to non-payment of jizya which is the cause for fighting them. It cannot relate to their food or drink, or what they say about God, because these are not given as causes for fighting them, and after paying the jizya they will still be consuming these things and saying these things without being fought. The closest and most viable cause must relate to jizya, that is, unlawfully consuming what belongs to the Muslim state, which, al-Bayḍā wī explains, ‘it has been decided that they should give’ ,11 since their own scriptures and prophets forbid breaking agreements and not paying what is due to others.12 His Messenger in this verse has been interpreted by exegetes as referring to the Prophet Muḥammad or the People of the Book’ s own earlier messengers, Moses or Jesus, but the latter must be the correct interpretation as it is already assumed that the People of the Book did not believe in Muḥammad or forbid what he forbade. They are condemned for not obeying their own prophet, who told them to honour their agreements. To make sense in the context of the jizya verse, this must mean ‘they do not forbid breaking an agreement – something that God and His Messenger forbid’ . The agreement here was to pay jizya. It is not likely to mean that they should pay jizya when initially asked to do so. God and their prophet did not forbid refusing to pay what you are simply being asked to pay, but they did forbid going back on an agreement they have entered into. They forbid refusing to pay what is due to others (Q. 3:75– 8).
NOTES
1 Caliph Abū Bakr, on his decision to fight Arab Muslim tribes who refused to pay zakāt after the death of the Prophet (Ṣālih b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz l al-Shaykh (ed.), al-Kutub al-sitta (Riyadh: Dār al-Salām, 1999), p. 606).
2 Their criticism relies, as we shall see, upon the meaning as understood in some classical sources and as sometimes applied in history.
3 A.J. Arberry, The Qur’an Interpreted (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 183. I must point out that Arberry’s is one of the best translations of the Qur’an into the English language.
4 See al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān (8 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2000), vol. 4, p. 70; Sayyid Quṭb, Fī zilāl al-Qurʾān (Cairo: Dār al-Shurūk, 1985), p. 1,632.
5 Al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr (16 vols. Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, n.d.), part 16, p. 29.
6 Abū Ḥayyān records the view from al-Kirmānī that the People of the Book describe God in a way that does not befit Him, and another view from al-Zajjāj that they assign a child to Him, that that they have changed their scriptures, have made unlawful what God made lawful and made lawful what He made unlawful. A third view, from Ibn ʿAṭiyya, was that they had abandoned the Islamic sharīʿa, which they should have accepted (Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ (8 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1993), vol. 5, p. 30.
7 Al-Nawawī, Matn al-arbaʿīn, tr. E. Ibrahim and D. Johnson-Davies (Damascus: Dār al-Qurʾān, 1977), p. 61.
8 Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, vol. 5, p. 30.
9 Al-Qurtubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān (21 vols in 11. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1999), vol. 4, p. 72.
10 Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, vol. 5, p. 30.
11 Al-Bayḍawī, Tafsīr (2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988), vol. 1, p. 401.
12 For example, King Solomon wrote, ‘It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay’ (Ecclesiastes 5:5).
______________
Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.2 (2012): 72–89
Edinburgh University Press
DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0056
# Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS
http://www.eupjournals.com/jqs
Categories: Quran, Recommended Reading
Blogging Theology 
A couple of interesting points made by the scholar for any Islamophobes out there to consider:
In any case, there is nothing in the Qur’an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone.
They are condemned for not obeying their own prophet, who told them to honour their agreements. To make sense in the context of the jizya verse, this must mean ‘they do not forbid breaking an agreement – something that God and His Messenger forbid’ . The agreement here was to pay jizya. It is not likely to mean that they should pay jizya when initially asked to do so. God and their prophet did not forbid refusing to pay what you are simply being asked to pay, but they did forbid going back on an agreement they have entered into. They forbid refusing to pay what is due to others
LikeLiked by 1 person
Salamu alaykum Paul,
Insha’Allah you are well.
I would like to read the remaining article by Prof. Abdel Haleem. If you would be so kind as to forward it to me, it would be greatly appreciated.
As an off topic comment, I noticed your post regarding the Study Qur’an. Do you know when it will be published?
Do take care
Fee amanillah
LikeLike
Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatu Allah
I have emailed you the PDF. I’m told the Study Quran will be published this fall – I have no further details.
regards
Pau
LikeLike
Assalamu ‘alaikum,
Would you please send to me the whole article brother.
Jazakallah khayr
LikeLike
done
LikeLike
Salaam Paul , great to see u back
Please mail me the pdf , thanks in advance .
LikeLiked by 1 person
The agreement here was to pay jizya. It is not likely to mean that they should pay jizya when initially asked to do so. God and their prophet did not forbid refusing to pay what you are simply being asked to pay, but they did forbid going back on an agreement they have entered into.
This makes no sense, since the beginning of the verse says “Fight them . . . until they pay the Jizay” – there is no asking, “please pay the jizya”; rather it was forced by the point of the sword on Jews and Christians for their lives. The initial thing was not “asked for”, rather it was demanded by force and sword. The whole history of the first conquests prove this – attacking every direction in aggressive warfare and conquering the Byzantine Empire in the Levant and Egypt, North Africa, and Zoroastrian Persia, and beyond. (634-900s AD) Verse 28 also relates to the context – after they conquered the pagans/polytheists in Arabia, and Abu Bakr forced it again after Muhammad died and they did not want to pay the Zakat (good that the professor supplied that quote by Abu Bakr) – “if you fear poverty” (verse 28), the idea is “don’t worry, Allah will enrich you by getting Jizya from Jews and Christians.
“O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.” Surah 9:28
There is no more getting the money from the polytheists coming to the Kaaba – that is their final year – let them not approach the sacred Mosque, therefore no more revenues from that. But verse 29 – by fighting the people of the book, Allah will enrich you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a general point Ken.
“Christian” Islamophobes are throwing their Bible under the bus in order to jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon about Jizya. The fact remains NO true Christian would be opposed to the Jizya.
Christians are instructed to give unto Caesar what belongs to him (see Mark 12:17), thus paying the Jizya is hardly an issue for a Bible-believing Christian. If an Islamic government taxes a Christian the Christian should not grumble according to their tradition.
Also really to get a more rounded understanding of Jizya people need to have some info on Dhimmitude. Here’s a clip of Sheikh Hamza Yusuf on this topic:
LikeLike
I wrote an article on Dhimmitude and that same lecture by Hamza Yusuf a while back. It is there at my blog.
It is obvious that the aggressive warfare and attacks of Islam vs. Byzantine Empire and Persia were all unjust.
Your religion first conquered, “might makes right”, then put the Dhimmi system in place, subjugating others. No evangelism or building of new churches or freedom of thought or freedom of speech was allowed; and Muslims were executed for apostasy. The Christian populations were worn down by the econmonic pressures and Dhimmi-tude, so they slowly converted to Islam over time. It is just an external ritualistic religion; lots of nominalism.
Like the unjust dictators and Caesars of history.
Christians paid their taxes, yes; but we still see the Ceasars such as Tiberias, Caligula, Nero and Domitition and Decius and Valerian and Diocletian as some of the most evil leaders in history. That is what you are admitting that the Islamic government is, by your use of “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God, what is God’s.” (Mark 12:17) Eventually, the Caesar’s were defeated by love and evangelism and holiness, not war. “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword” Matthew 26:52 That is another one of the great differences between our two religions, Christianity “conquered” the Roman Empire by holiness, evangelism, love, and good deeds (caring for slaves, women, abandoned children); whereas Islam conquered by aggressive unjust warfare.
Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-184—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. [see context of Surah 9:28-29] Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. 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.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘It is just an external ritualistic religion; lots of nominalism.’
As a former evangelical Christian myself I can see where Ken might be coming from on this – but I have absolutely not found this to be true of Islam – if it was I would never have converted to the faith. Islam is as spiritually rich and deep as anything we find in the Christian tradition.
LikeLike
You certainly see this in Sufism, but the legalism — and I would even go to as far as to say the “problem” of legalism — is still a narrative that defines the majority of Islam (take for instance the development of Islam within its historical context). Of course, you would disagree with me.
And I get it, Sufism is outstanding and so is the literature. And I would much prefer the Ummah be more inclined and accepting of Sufism. But the issue I have, particularly when I approach all religions with scepticism and secularity, is that these interpretations tend to be far too esoteric. Saying that, I don’t mind such interpretations, but I get uncomfortable when the individual insists that the text is inerrant, and yet, employs some bizarre eisegesis on the text when addressing theological issues.
LikeLike
Paul- twice now I have visited a sufi ceremony. They crank the music and literally spin in circles on the spot for a nauseating amount of time. Then we huddled in a small room, turned off the lights and they intensely beat drums to the repetition of quranic chanting and seated on the floor rocked back and forth. It built… and built…and built….until they were all basically screaming in demonic rage in this dark and overcrowded room.
For me, it was nothing lremotely close to spiritual depth. It was cultic, creepy and quite frankly satanic.
Is this the type of Sufism you implement? If not, can you explain the spiritual aspects of your faith?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Not all instances of sufi practice would appear to be terribly wholesome! For penetrating spiritual depth and wisdom I recommend the Quran itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have read the Quran. I didn’t find it spiritual at all. Is there something else that makes Islam deeply spiritual for you?
LikeLike
I always find it very odd that some people are blind and deaf to the spiritual riches and beauty of the Quran. I think it depends on what the person brings to the Book: an open heart or a closed heart,…
LikeLike
Do you feel close to God when you read the Quran?
LikeLike
Of course. It is His Word. It has amazing power. It is not human.
LikeLike
Very nicely stated below Paul…there is something in the US Constitution that sounds like it is written by those drafting a constitution for a new nation, there is something in a letter by someone’s mother that looks like it is written by a mother, there is something in a page in a newspaper front page article that sounds like it is written by a journalist, there is something on every page, indeed on every verse of the Qur’an that sounds like this is from God, the Merciful and Just Creator, Sustainer, and Nourisher of the Universe or Multiverse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beautifully put
LikeLike
“It was cultic, creepy and quite frankly satanic.” Why did you go twice? Scary
LikeLike
I have been to evangelical worship services which were also cultic, creepy and quite frankly satanic. You would not believe what can go on at these churches.
LikeLike
I wonder why the holy spirit doesn’t keep him from visiting there again …
LikeLike
Can you highlight an example you experienced?
LikeLike
I will mention some of the main manifestations of the ‘Holy Spirit’ later though I suspect you are well aware of the phenomenon as it is well documented
LikeLike
To learn and observe this particular sect of Islam- they are my favourites- I call them the pentecostals of the muslim world…
LikeLike
…. cultic, creepy and quite frankly satanic
LikeLike
The majority of islamic scholars consider this sufi practices as heretic.
From the contemporary scholars we got Al Buti and Wahba Zuhayli from Syria saying the same.
Sufism is aimed to be something “deep” but what is more superficial than these satanic filthy circles? Sufism is no sect in Islam, at least originally. Sufis do not have their own beliefs and laws. Those Sufis who did have beliefs going against the islamic orthodoxy where called heretics, zanadiqah, baatinis and they where excommunicated from Islam and in many cases executed by the ruler.
LikeLike
I completely agree with Paul.
In addition, we have to keep in mind that Ibn Kathir is writing through a lens of history that included a lot of history which shaped certain ideas. What he writes is not the Qur’an.
The Qur’an in Surah 3 and elsewhere clarifies that among the People of the book there are believers and good people as well.
Ken is saying what is untrue and it is unholy to say what is untrue, especially towards what large numbers of people believe in.
[On the side, the Mongols were also “conquered” to some extent by the Muslim saints, virtually all of Indonesia was conquered by pious Muslim traders and Muslim saints, much of the Indian subcontinent was “conquered” by Muslim Sufis, millions of Christians in Egypt and Syria stayed Christian for centuries and converted in part by “holiness, evangelism, love, and good deeds”…I am sure Muslims also cared “for slaves, women, abandoned children.”
LikeLike
@Ken
I don’t appreciate this comment of yours:
‘Christians paid their taxes, yes; but we still see the Ceasars such as Tiberias, Caligula, Nero and Domitition and Decius and Valerian and Diocletian as some of the most evil leaders in history. That is what you are admitting that the Islamic government is, by your use of “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God, what is God’s’
I was not ‘admitting’ anything. I simply tried to present more context when it comes to Jizya. Sadly, nowadays, many amongst the Islamophobes, talk about the concept of Jizya without giving a broader context to it. This leads to a ton of misconceptions. I would not be surprised if people walk away thinking something ridiculous like Muslims unfairly take money from non-Muslims just because they are non-Muslims.
IIRC Shaykh Hamza Yusuf mentions what Dhimmis get for paying the Jizya. Hence the need for some info on Dhimmitude when discussing Jizya, And the adage of there’s no civilisation without taxation comes into mind. It’s not like Muslims were exempt from paying money – Muslims had to pay Zakat. On top of all this, women, children and the insane are exempt from Jizya.
Now if you want to talk about how, historically some rulers may have abused and misused the Jizya system, that’s not really my discussion.
I also want to take exception at your mentioning of the killing of apostates. IIRC you are a Christian who has links to Calvinists or people who have sympathies towards John Calvin. Did Calvin not approve of killing what were perceived as ‘heretics’ and ‘blasphemers’?
And another point, Christians, it seems to me Romans 13:7 instructs the Christian to pay their taxes. So amongst observant Christians who believe in the NT one would not expect to see any arguments about paying their taxes as it’s a religious obligation for Christians too.
LikeLike
I do no think it is helpful to understand the jizya as an equivalent to the democratic taxation system that offers equal rights and opportunoties for all. Dhimmah is a covenant or pact based on one’s religious persuasion, not a taxation for all citizens. It is related to shame and subjection to Islam and Islamic supremacy. Dr Mark Durie’s work is helpful in this regard.
Just imagine the outrage Yahya if the UK started to tax pakistanis differently simply because they were Pakistanis. That you had three options- convert, become a dhimmi or die! That as a dhimmi you were reqhired to cross the road and lower your gaze when you passed an anglo. And if you refused to do this, or pay your jizya, the UK could systematically begin beheading people. That is a closer equivalent and I am glad the colonialists abolished such a barbaric policy.
LikeLike
you might find it helpful to actually read Professor Abdel Haleem’s discussion of The jizya Verse above. But I fear your ingrained hatred for all things Islamic will block your ability to change your opinions in line with the truth.
LikeLike
I have read Haleem. I have also read Kamali.
“the majority of Sunni and Shi‘i jurists have held refusal to pay the jizyah as a ground for revocation of the contract of dhimmah.”
And we know from the hadith that muslims are to fight anybody who refuses to pay the jizya. And we know from the Koran that subjection is part of the dhimmah purpose.
“…should they choose, at any point in time, to embrace Islam, their status of dhimmah is automatically terminated and they become full-‘edged citizens as of that time”
As Kamali notes, unless they accept Islam, dhimmis are not entitled to full citizenship. It is deliberate and systematic persecution of other faiths and refusal to pay results in death in all schools of Islmic law apart from the hanafi jurisprudence.
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Haleem is promoting a hanafi based fiqh commentary. If so, he is in the minority on this.
LikeLike
“I do no think it is helpful to understand the jizya as an equivalent to the democratic taxation system that offers equal rights and opportunoties for all.”
What’s your point apart from trying to stir trouble? A “democratic taxation system” has different taxes for different groups. And the democratic system is not a Christian system. It’s not “yours”. It is as Muslim as it is Christian or Hindu or agnostic or … Democracy and human rights are universal rights, they are mine, and I do not accept your attempts to occupy them for your purposes.
“That is a closer equivalent and I am glad the colonialists abolished such a barbaric policy.” I am glad you show your arrogant white supremacist attitude by comments like that.
LikeLike
It is a response to Yahya who made the comparison to taxation. The jizyah is nothing of the sorts. If you can show me one democratic nation that taxes people according to their religious affiliation and would only allow them full citizenship with full rights upon acceptance of a particluar religion, then I will withdraw my comment and allow the comparison to stand. Also show me within this same nation’s constitution that full fledged citizens are allowed to fight and subdue anybody who refuses to pay the special tax.
I am glad the dhimmah system is obselete. It is a terribly unjust system.
LikeLike
“If you can show me one democratic nation that taxes people according to their religious affiliation”
Germany – you only pay “church tax” if you are member of a church
“and would only allow them full citizenship with full rights upon acceptance of a particular religion”
Israel is planning to do that
“I am glad the dhimmah system is obselete. It is a terribly unjust system.” Big deal. I’m glad the spanish inquisition is obsolete.
LikeLike
Germany’s system is more equivalent to zakat, not jizya…but nice try.
I do not understnad why you would defend the dhimmah system? Help me understand your rationale. Do you honestly think the dhimmah pact is a just system?
LikeLike
I am refuting your fallacious attacks on Islam
LikeLike
Paulus does the Bible advocate democracy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do you both insist on diverting the discussion? I really would like to know the rationale as to why you would defend dhimmitude. Can we discuss that?
Paul. Is Haleem a hanafi?
LikeLike
I don’t t know.
LikeLike
Hi Yahya Snow!
I simply tried to present more context when it comes to Jizya.
But you, and the professor of the article also, (at least in the part that Paul W. put up) ignored the part about “fight the people of the book” and ignored the context of verse 28 and 30.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(9:29:1)
قتلوا – imperative/command, from Qatal – to fight, to kill, to slay
(root = Qatal – ق ت ل = fight to the death, kill) of verse 29, and you both ignored the immediate context of verse 28 – “if you fear poverty” (since there will no more revenues from the pagans coming to the Ka’aba)
The aggressive wars of Islam against the Byzantine Empire and the Persia Empire were unjust and evil and, because the Muslims first aggressively conquered everything by war/sword/force, then instituted the Dhimmi system, the whole Dhimmi system was evil and unjust. period. You should be embarrassed over that and the history of the Caliphs and conquering by war and the sword and imperialism. (for many centuries !!)
To not allow evangelism and freedom to talk and persuade others by civilized debate seems to prove that Islam ruled by fear of the gospel message, because it is powerful, when allowed freely to be read, talked about, debated, and allowed for Muslims to leave Islam.
Regarding Calvin –
Yes, the City Council of Geneva executed Michael Servetus for spreading heresies (Anti-Trinitarian books that he published), while Calvin was the pastor-teacher there, true. (in the year 1533)
I totally disagree with that. They inherited that wrong policy from the centuries of the Roman Catholic Church dominating the European culture, especially from the 500s onward. The Roman Catholics were going to execute him, but he escaped from prison.
To be more fair to Calvin, Calvin did warn Servetus several times, writing to him while he was in prison, pleading with him to repent; and Calvin did not approve of the method of burning.
I disagree with Calvin on infant baptism also. Baptizing babies is wrong. A person must first understand that they are a sinner and understand who Jesus is and trust in Him as Savior and Lord and in His atonement and resurrection from the dead. (Mark 1:15, John 1:12; Romans 10:9-10)
So, Calvin is not infallible.
Christianity did not do that in the early 3-4 centuries – until after 380-392 AD. The unity of church and state and executing apostates is wrong.
Thank God for freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Islam needs the same kind of reform.
Besides the Trinity and Deity of Chirst and atonement of Christ, the other great difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity grew for almost 400 years while being persecuted and many Caesars killed Christians up until 312 AD.
Islam was the opposite, once it got power in Medina in 622 AD. After that, it was an aggressive warlike machine. Might makes right in Islam; the exact thing we are seeing in the whole Global Jihadism of today.
You have Qur’an texts and Hadith and Sira and Tafsir texts that justify the Islamism / Global Jihadism in the world today.
The Crusades was 1000 years ago; the Spanish Inquisition about 600 years ago; Calvin 500 years ago. But Islam does this stuff today.
There is nothing in the New Testament that approves of that kind of thing. What Calvin approved of (the execution of Servetus) was against the New Testatment (The True Injeel that has never changed, and that the Qur’an affirms – Surah 5:47, 10:94; 5:66-68; 2:136).
“Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” (John 18:36)
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. ” 2 Corinthians 10:3-5
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12
Using the word, “Islamophobe” is a similar tactic that homosexuals use in calling Christians “homophobes”. It is immature and seeks to shut down conversation. Muslims need to stop using it and just discuss the issues and texts. Muslims don’t seem to actually answer arguments when the Christian studies Islam and quotes from their texts. A phobia is an irrational fear. But fear of a grizzly bear or snake or hungry lion or shark or a wicked and insane person with a knive or gun is not irrational, but quite normal and rational.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
But you, and the professor of the article also, (at least in the part that Paul W. put up) ignored the part about “fight the people of the book” and ignored the context of verse 28 and 30.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(9:29:1)
قتلوا – imperative/command, from Qatal – to fight, to kill, to slay
(root = Qatal – ق ت ل = fight to the death, kill) of verse 29, and you both ignored the immediate context of verse 28 – “if you fear poverty” (since there will no more revenues from the pagans coming to the Ka’aba)
I say;
My dear Mr. Ken Temple, you ignored the whole chapter Surat At-Tawbah (The Repentance) – سورة التوبة of the Glorious Quran but keep hammering on “fight the people of the book” to give Islam a bad name. That is not good Mr. Ken, because Jesus will not support not reading the whole chapter with open heart and truth, but just to pick “fight the people of the book” to try to give Islam a bad name under false pretense.
Why you are totally false?
1. The chapter is about repentance and also with regards to treaty by Muslims with the Arab pagans of Mecca at the time of our prophet.
This is the beginning verse
Sahih International
9:1
This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.
9:2
So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
9:3
And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away – then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.
9:4
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
—————————-
MR. KEN TEMPLE, excuse me for making bold letters of your name but I want to make a point as our beloved Jesus Christ Al-Masih will not ignore VERSE 9:4 of the Glorious Quran in acknowledging that the chapter of the Quran has exception clearly spelt to those who Muslims must fight.
Mr. Ken Temple, the verse 9:4 clearly states that if you are polytheist or pagan or people of the book or Hindu or Jew etc. and you do not support anyone against Muslims, you are not the one Muslims should fight. So, be rest assured Muslims are not commanded to fight anyone until they are attacked or until they Pagans of Mecca breaks their treaty with Muslims as the Pagans continue to break the treaties. According to verse 9:4
9:5
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakat, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
——————
Again 9:5 immediately follows 9:4 surah which has made it clear and accepted those who the Muslims are to fight i.e. those who break treaty or supported some people against them
9:6
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
———————-
Any Christian who reads this comment should be open minded with surah 9:6 and be objective. Why did the surah 9:6 not say force convert the polytheist to Islam? But to deliver him to his place of safety? Christian inquisition or Crusaders in the Holy Land would have killed or force convert a Jew or a Muslim.
9:7
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:8
How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient
9:9
They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
———————
The preceding surah’s above indicates how God is not happy about how these pagans keep breaking the treaty, hence the command to fight them.
My dear brothers, the Quran is available online or in Mosques free of charge and you can continue to read the verses yourself and it is not about “fighting the people of the book” as Ken will like us to believe, but there is an exception which was clearly spelt in surah 9:4 of the chapter.
The Quran says, those closer to Muslims are among the people of the Book and it allows inter-marriage between them. How can you be instructed to kill your family? I.e. people of the book?
9:28
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
————————
Ken, I do not think you will allow a voodoo priest from Haiti in your Church with his idols and performing his rituals or a gay wedding in your Church.
9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
9:30
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
————————–
There is exception in 9:4, because it is the continuation of the story of repentance, and treaty and also those who attack or support others to attack Muslims.
You said;
The aggressive wars of Islam against the Byzantine Empire and the Persia Empire were unjust and evil and, because the Muslims first aggressively conquered everything by war/sword/force, then instituted the Dhimmi system, the whole Dhimmi system was evil and unjust. Period. You should be embarrassed over that and the history of the Caliphs and conquering by war and the sword and imperialism. (For many centuries!!)
I say;
You forgot, when the Christians conquered Europe and make any one to be a Christian by force? Until secularism fought Christianity and brought secularism which is not Christianity. The democracy and freedom in the west was not by Christians but by liberalists and secularist. The northern USA had to fight the southern conservative who use Christian values to subjugate and persecute non-Christians. Mormons and Catholics were persecuted by the Protestants, until the liberal north won the war with the southern conservative to bring freedom of religion. So, freedom is not by Christians but by liberals, atheists and secularists who were subjugated and persecuted by Christians.
It continues today as the southern US law makers will not allow gay marriage because of Christianity but the liberal law makers favours any freedom for anyone.
You said;
The aggressive wars of Islam against the Byzantine Empire and the Persia Empire were unjust and evil and, because the Muslims first aggressively conquered everything by war/sword/force, then instituted the Dhimmi system, the whole Dhimmi system was evil and unjust. Period.
I say;
You forgot to mention aggressive wars on Islam by the Mongols, Persia and Byzantine Empires. You forgot to mention when the Mongols massacred Muslims in thousands at that time. So, during those days, some wars are tactical, strategic and self-defence but certainly not to spread Islam by force.
The strong evidence is that, even after a war when Muslims are victorious, they never force convert anyone. Jizya is just a tax, because you do not expect Muslims to force zakat tax which is their religious obligation to non-Muslims. The non-Muslims tax percentage is not greater than the Muslims. Muslims apart from percentage from their capital, they are also required the give percentage from their food and money during Ramadan, eidul fitr, adzhar and so many religious ceremonies which the non-Muslim under Muslim rule is not required to do.
If Islam supports force conversions like Christians did in Europe, Americas etc. where non-Christians are not allowed until the war of freedom that happened there, there would have been no Christians in Majority Muslims countries today. The evidence is there clearly, for anyone to see, Christians, Jews, Buddhist Hindus are in all majority Muslim countries from centuries upon centuries till today. In fact Iraq Christians were the oldest Christians and they are still there today. The evangelical Christian intervention there (Iraq) made it ungovernable to allow Isis to beat them and other Muslims. What they suffered is caused by evangelical Christians to use force of war to evangelize and they ended up making Iraq ungovernable, hence the madmen to kill both Muslims and Christians.
When the Christians conquered Spain and the Muslims were running to North Africa, the Jews went with them. If the Muslims were treating the Jews and the Christians badly with a Jizya, why did the Jews left with Muslim to North Africa, but not stay with the Christians in Spain?
Morocco and Iran, before Israel was created was the most populous Jewish countries in the world. Why did the Muslims not force converted of them from centuries upon centuries, till today?
When the Christians conquered Spain, with killings, torture and force conversion, all Spain became completely Christians until Europe became liberal and secular once again and migration of non-Christians.
Indigenous Iraqis, Bahrainis, Iranis, Moroccans, Algerians, Indonesians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Malaysians, Syrians, Jordanians etc. in all Muslim majority nations who did not wilfully covert from centuries upon centuries, still remain their indigenous Christians, Buddhist, and Hindus etc. till today. If Muslims were to have force converted them as Ken would like us to believe, there would have not been a single indigenous Christian in the Muslim Majority country above.
There is a time no single Muslim would be allowed in Europe during the reign of Richard the Lion heart until the liberals and the secularist who do not share Christian values took over Europe by force to allow for the freedom people are enjoying now and abolished the harsh Christian laws.
You said;
To not allow evangelism and freedom to talk and persuade others by civilized debate seems to prove that Islam ruled by fear of the gospel message, because it is powerful, when allowed freely to be read, talked about, debated, and allowed for Muslims to leave Islam.
I say;
You said God is 3 and the Bible and the Quran says God is Only One and Alone. Convincing me is just like wasting my time on any religion like Hindu that says God is more than one.
Our prophet is the first to allow debate with Christians and Jews in his mosque and we continue to do it today. Not only the Gospel, anything including Satan, Hindu, and Buddhist is powerful, when it targets the vulnerable like children, the weak, refugees in a war torn area. The less vulnerable adult do discuss and debate with Christians at that time just like how our prophets did in his Mosque.
Evangelicals targeting the vulnerable is what is prohibited but not discussing about religion which our prophet did in his |Mosque.
You said;
I totally disagree with that. They inherited that wrong policy from the centuries of the Roman Catholic Church dominating the European culture, especially from the 500s onward. The Roman Catholics were going to execute him, but he escaped from prison.
To be fairer to Calvin, Calvin did warn Servetus several times, writing to him while he was in prison, pleading with him to repent; and Calvin did not approve of the method of burning.
I say;
You forgot, the Protestants kills and persecuted the Catholics and the Mormons? Just recently in the 1900’s until the liberals stop them? And they are continuing to deny gay their freedom?
I say;
The Crusades was 1000 years ago; the Spanish Inquisition about 600 years ago; Calvin 500 years ago. But Islam does this stuff today.
I say;
You forgot the Bosnian Massacre of Muslims by Christian extremists? You forgot Christian Lord’s resistance Army of Uganda, using Christianity to carry his atrocities? May be CNN did not show you how Christians massacred Muslims in Nigeria just recently. You forgot evangelical Christians who persuaded Bush/Blair war to Iraq for them to use force to evangelize?
The Christians was forced to stop their atrocities by force from the liberals and the secularists.
The is law and other in the west, that is why Christian extremism is suppressed and it is not by the love of Jesus, because as you admitted Calving did kill because of Christianity. If he does it today he will be jailed.
If there was a brutal crusade for 1000000000000000 years, it is still not good and it shows how violent Christianity is until tamed by secularist and liberals and freedom fighters against oppression.
Nobody tamed Islam, there are still non-Muslim indigenous population in Muslims Majority Land from centuries to centuries till today.
I do not support extremists, Muslims, Jews, Christians or any religion, but some of them are carried away by their brothers been burned to death by Israeli Helicopter gunship and their farmland and houses bulldozed by contribution from evangelical Christians who believe it is a sin not to support Israel to kill Palestinians(Christians, Muslims and Jews)
JazakAllah Khairan
To be continued…………………
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for such spirited interaction, “Intellect”!
Yes, I know about Surah 9, the whole chapter, and verses 1-5.
Why are there no more polytheists/pagans allowed in the Arabian Peninsula, after Abu Bakr and the Apostasy Wars / Ridda Wars (632-634 AD) ?
Why did Omar hear the prophet say, “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian Peninsula” ??
Al-Muwatta Hadith Hadith 45.17
The Expulsion of the Jews from Madina
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, “One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was,
‘May Allah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration .
Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.’ ”
Al-Muwatta Hadith Hadith 45.18
The Expulsion of the Jews from Madina
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ”Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.”
Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith 2905 Narrated byAbdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: people of two different religions would not inherit from one another.
Of course I don’t agree with the Serbians and the evil dictator Milosevich who tried to genocide the Bosnians. And USA helped to defeat the Serbians in that.
I don’t agree with the “Lord’s resistance army” either. I don’t know much about it; but likely they will claim they are doing something in self-defense.
The Crusades were claiming self -defense. Muslims attacked and conquered first, several centuries earlier.
You forgot evangelical Christians who persuaded Bush/Blair war to Iraq for them to use force to evangelize?
Bush and Blair did not go into Iraq by being persuades by evangelical Christians. What a goofy claim. Lots of non-Evangelicals in the west support other western – conservative values and military defense type things and conservative economic issues / capitalism, etc. and are they are not Evangelicals.
They (Bush/Blair and persuading other countries) decided that, based on their own information – however wrong and mis-understood, partly by bad intelligence and partly by Saddam’s lying as if he had some kind of weapons program to look like a strong man (vs. Iran); and partly by some Kurdish groups (one was lead by a guy named Ahmad Chalibi) that were persuading the USA and Britian to go in; and also by thinking Al Qaeda had gone in there and could link up with Saddam’s government. etc.
——–
again:
Why are there no more polytheists/pagans allowed in the Arabian Peninsula, after Abu Bakr and the Apostasy Wars / Ridda Wars (632-634 AD) ?
Why did Omar hear the prophet say, “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian Peninsula” ??
LikeLiked by 1 person
The strong evidence is that, even after a war when Muslims are victorious, they never force convert anyone. Jizya is just a tax, because you do not expect Muslims to force zakat tax which is their religious obligation to non-Muslims.
The evidence is that everyone in the Byzantine areas (Levant, Egypt, N. Africa, Iraq) that was not a Jew or Christian was forced to convert to Islam; and the Christians and Jews either had to convert to Islam or pay the jiziye tax, but it was more than just a tax, it was a submission tax, “with willing submission”. عن ید وهم صغرون
From the Hadith:
There are many places in the hadith where Muhammad tells his followers to demand the jizya of non-believers. Here he lays down the rule that it is to be extorted by force:
“If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. 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” Sahih Muslim 19:4294
The command for Muslims to spread Islamic rule by force, subjugating others until they either convert to Islam or pay money, is eternal:
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 4, book 53, # 386
This is being recounted during the reign of Umar, Muhammad’s companion and the second caliph who sent conquering armies into non-Muslim Persian and Christian lands (after Muhammad’s death).
Ishaq 956 & 962 – “He who withholds the Jizya is an enemy of Allah and His apostle.” The words of Muhammad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now if you want to talk about how, historically some rulers may have abused and misused the Jizya system, that’s not really my discussion.
But it should be, because it shows that the rest of the world cannot trust Islamic rule to be the rulers – they were imperialists, conquering everything in sight by aggressive warfare ( Jihad, Qatal, Harb) until they were stopped by self-defense response.
You imply we should accept Islamic rule and pay the Jiziyeh tax because Christians were exhorted to pay their taxes to Caesar.
But the west (nor Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, Tribal groups, etc.) can never trust that Islamic rulers would be just and fair – this is proved by history of all humans and the history of Islam – because they were not just nor fair – Islamic law is unjust by nature. It is “we are right no matter what you say” type of ruling. Not allowing evangelism and freedom of thought and religion is evil.
What examples do you know of where the Islamic rulers abused the system that you are willing to admit were an abuse?
The plain history of human beings, including Islamic rulers, shows the sinful hearts of humans – if they have all the power, they will be corrupt and without accountability, which is exactly what happened.
Only Christianity has the right diagnosis of the human heart – Mark 7:20-23
20 And He (Jesus) was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
Christianity admits it’s mistakes of the past (some aspects of Crusades, the Inquisition, racial slavery, treatment of the American Indians, etc.), but Islam does not seem to admit it’s mistakes and sins.
It cannot, since it has some of those evil things right in the text, for example, Surah 9:28-29.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you were to read the article I posted you would see there is nothing evil about the jizya system. And as Jesus was a Muslim prophet we agree with everything he said.,
LikeLike
It is evil, because it is based on fighting and killing first – Qatal – the scholar avoided the whole context of the command to fight and kill and avoided verse 28 that because there was no more revenue from piligrammages to Mecca, “if you fear poverty” – you and he totally avoided the clear context and the fact that Ibn Kathir was more honest in why Allah commanded the Muslims to attack the people of the book in verses 28-29.
Jesus was not a Muslim prophet. Islam came 600 years after Jesus. Islam in anachronistic. Jesus was crucified by the Jews and Romans under Pontius Pilate and your Qur’an cannot even get history right.
You have the freedom in the west to discuss issues.
Since there is no freedom to choose or evangelize in Islam, Under Dhimmi system with Jiziye, it is unjust and cruel. It grew by aggressive warfare and conquering others and fear. That should make you question the whole thing.
Why is Islam of afraid of letting people have a choice?
You should recognize this. You have seemingly recognized some of the problems with Islam, by your evolution over time by leaving the Debate Initiative, and then going back and forth on your several blogs, leaving Islam for a few days, then coming back, etc. and now a new blog. You know deep down, the whole Islam thing is not right. I am glad you are questioning it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course Jesus was a prophet he submitted to God and his will. That is the very definition of a muslim.
LikeLike
The sinfulness and abuse of power is evident in original Islam and Islamic history; and is one of the reasons for the Sufi movement – even Tim Winter (Abdul Hakim Murad) admitted (Paul Williams had that article in one of his past blog posts that was at his old blog) that the Sufi movement was started from a disillusionment from a total dry and ritual and legalistic system of obey the Sharia – “just do your duty, and check it off after you obey Allah”, etc. The Sufi movement recognized that Islam had no emphasis on the heart, so they have to create a system and emphasize the internal heart and issues like love and spirituality – but it is not an inherent emphasis of original Islam. There is no verse like “God is love” in the Qur’an; nor anything like “be filled with the Holy Spirit”; nor “The Helper / the Holy Spirit will be with you and in you”. Sufi-sim borrows these ideas from Christianity and seeks to read it back into some Islamic texts.
Muslims are more and more becoming disillusioned with Islam, because of the evil and harshness of the Global Jihadism/ Islamism.
Maybe that is one of the roots of why Abdul Hakim Murad advised Paul B. Williams to get away from polemics and emphasize the Sufi path more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Quran is full of emphasis on the heart..spiritual depth is right there at the beginning of Islam in its Book.
LikeLike
Not much at all. There are a few verses here and there, but it is not an emphasis. The emphasis in Islam is external obedience to external laws and rules. like a slave to a master. Abdullah to Rabb. Whereas in Christianity, the emphasis is on knowing God in the heart, the love of God, and spiritual relationship with God, and the Holy Spirit giving us that connection to God.
You don’t have any of that in Islam. Islam’s emphasis is legalism, externalisms, rituals, rules, fear, punishment, war, Qatal, Harb, Jihad against unbelievers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s amazing how you know all this stuff. Really amazing, given the fact you can’t even abide in Christ.
LikeLike
Islam’s (and the Quran’s) major emphasis is on love, peace, justice and bliss in the world to come. God shows himself in his word as the most compassionate and the most kind.
LikeLike
Where in the Qur’an does it say, “God is love” الله محبه ?
Where is the Qur’an does it say, “God loves sinners” ?
1 John 4:8 and Romans 5:8 teach a higher, better character and gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have a read of the free book on Love in the Quran.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Where in the Qur’an does it say, “God is love” الله محبه ?
Where is the Qur’an does it say, “God loves sinners” ?
I say;
God cannot be love itself, as love by itself is not a being, person or a spirit but a word, an attribute or characteristics of a being for love does not have weight and occupy space or has consciousness by itself, but “God loves the righteous” is there in surah 9:4 and many other passages of the Holy Quran.
God of the Bible or Jesus does not love sinners because he has created the hell fire awaiting sinners. Is it not so? Why do you lie with your mouth and in writing that Jesus loves sinners when he created a hell fire to burn sinners? The sinners includes babies who died and did not have the opportunity to believe Jesus died for their sins. Babies do not have the knowledge and intellect to know who the heck Jesus is.
In Islam all babies and children who are not wise enough to know right and wrong, just like the courts in the US will set them free from any wrong doing because they do not know what they are doing. All babies and children, when they die at certain age whether the children of Muslim, Christian, voodoo king, Hindu will go to heaven straight with no question asked because they are not wise enough to know what they are doing. Is this not God of Love? Mr. Ken? Than your God who has love, love all over the Bible but He does not practice love and will just burn innocent babies in fire through no fault of theirs for not “believing Jesus died for their sins”.
You ask about love in the Quran?
May be you should learn English again.
When you open every chapter of the Quran, don’t you read about the compassionate, merciful, gracious, beneficent God?
Are these Majestic words and attributes of Allah not love?
Compassion is love.
Proof:
Noun
Noun: compassion;
Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
“The victims should be treated with compassion”
Synonyms
pity, sympathy, empathy, fellow feeling, care, concern, solicitude, sensitivity, warmth, love, tenderness, mercy, leniency, tolerance, kindness, humanity, charity
“Have you no compassion for a fellow human being?”
Antonyms
indifference, cruelty
Source of dictionary
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=QZzaVOy-N9LCqAXr6oDIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=what+is+compassion
Mercy is love, grace is love etc. Allah love is absolutely in the Quran. Unlike the Bible the God of the Quran practice his attributes or names but the God of the Bible will burn innocent babies in hell because THEY DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS DIED FOR THEIR SINS which means they are not Christians but Muslims because Islam claim any baby born is sinless and pure, unless he grows up and know right and wrong. He does not inherit sins from anyone and when died straight to heaven. What a compassionate and a merciful God of the Quran!!! Allahu Akbar.
Christianity says, hey anyone born, including babies, including Jesus and his mother because they are descendant of Adam and Eve inherit their sins and are so sinners. Islam says no way, it is false.
If what you mean by love as having an affair or worshiping, our God does not have an affair or worships any one.
Definition of love
1. An intense feeling of deep affection.
“Babies fill parents with intense feelings of love”
deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment;
devotion, adoration, doting, idolization, worship;
passion, ardor, desire, lust, yearning, infatuation, besottedness
“his friendship with Helen grew into love”
Synonyms
compassion, care, caring, regard, solicitude, concern, friendliness, friendship, kindness, charity, goodwill, sympathy, kindliness, altruism, unselfishness, philanthropy, benevolence, fellow feeling, humanity
“their love for their fellow human beings”
relationship, love affair, romance, liaison, affair of the heart, amour
“their love will survive”
Antonyms
hatred
2. A deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone.
“It was love at first sight”
become infatuated with, give/lose one’s heart to; More
informal fall for, be bowled over by, be swept off one’s feet by, develop a crush on
“she didn’t mean to fall in love with him”
infatuated with, besotted with, enamored of, smitten with, consumed with desire for;
captivated by, bewitched by, enthralled by, entranced by, moonstruck by;
devoted to, doting on;
informal mad/crazy/nuts/wild about
“he’s in love with Gillian”
3.A personified figure of love, often represented as Cupid.
Noun: Love
A great interest and pleasure in something.
“His love for football”
liking of/for, enjoyment of, appreciation of/for, taste for, delight for/in, relish of, passion for, zeal for, appetite for, zest for, enthusiasm for, keenness for, fondness for, soft spot for, weakness for, bent for, proclivity for, inclination for, disposition for, partiality for, predilection for, penchant for
“her love for fashion”
Affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one’s behalf.
synonyms: best wishes, regards, good wishes, greetings, kind/kindest regards
“my mother sends her love”
A formula for ending an affectionate letter.
“Take care, lots of love, Judy”
4.
A person or thing that one loves.
“She was the love of his life”
beloved, loved one, love of one’s life, dear, dearest, dear one, darling, sweetheart, sweet, angel, honey;
lover, inamorato, inamorata, amour, paramour
“he was her one true love”
British informal
A friendly form of address.
“It’s all right, love”
British informal
Used to express affectionate approval for someone.
Noun: a love
“Don’t fret, there’s a love”
(In tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil.
“Love fifteen”
Verb
Verb: love; 3rd person present: loves; past tense: loved; past participle: loved; gerund or present participle: loving
Feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone).
“Do you love me?”
care very much for, feel deep affection for, hold very dear, adore, think the world of, be devoted to, dote on, idolize, worship;
be in love with, be infatuated with, be smitten with, be besotted with;
informal be mad/crazy/nuts/wild about, have a crush on, carry a torch for
Source of dictionary definition.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=QZzaVOy-N9LCqAXr6oDIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=love+definition
JazakAllah Khairan
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Whereas in Christianity, the emphasis is on knowing God in the heart, the love of God, and spiritual relationship with God, and the Holy Spirit giving us that connection to God.
I say;
What relation? What connection with God are you talking about?
Seeing God? The Bible says God cannot be seen, so you are contradicting your self here. Moses, Jacob, Abraham knows God in the heart and that is Islam without believing
a. God has a Son
b. Jesus Christ died for their sins or is their personal saviour. (Show me were Abraham believe God died, became a man or Jesus is his personal saviour or died for his sins).
With regards to spiritual connection to God, mind you it is not solely Christian authority. All religion have their spiritual connection with their God. Idol worshipers and voodoo worshipers in Haiti and other pagan, ritualistic cults deals with spirit to connect to their God before Christianity my dear Mr. Ken. Do you call those as having relationship and connection with God?
Visit any idol shrine and the first thing is for the head of the shrine to be possessed by a spirit to connect himself to his God. Do you call that a spiritual connection with God?
I do not think believing a God who has no blood for his blood to save you is a wise thing to call s spiritual connection with God.
A spiritual connection with God is pondering about God and your heart telling you to stop everything and meditate about Him like how all prophets such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed etc. did.
God help those who help themselves and Muslims humble themselves to have spiritual connection with their Lord by worshiping him, not the other way around when Christians expect their creator to humble himself to them.
Are you superior than your creator? for him to humble himself to you?
Thanks
LikeLike
Isa Al Masih عیسی المسیح said, “Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and saw it was was glad.” and “Before Abraham was born, I am.” John 8:56-58
LikeLike
Most scholars doubt Jesus said these words.
LikeLike
Is this real tea. Most of the Qur’an is talking about spiritual matters relating to the heart. There are like a handful of verses on law in a couple of the bigger surahs.
LikeLike
Yeah, there are a few issues with this article, and this is something that I’ve brought up a few months ago but it’s something I’ve never had the time to go into depth with. Hopefully, I’ll find some time but I highly doubt it.
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity, what made you get rid of the old site and start all over?
LikeLike
Greetings Ken
https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/01/11/9/
LikeLike
Very interesting!
Sounds like it a matter of emphasis and that too much focus on polemical attack against Christianity is not a “good way” of argumentation. (Surah 29:46)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been intending to analyse this article for a while now.
LikeLike
Most scholars doubt that Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on a winged creature or got direct revelation from God, also. Most scholars doubt the Qur’an also.
LikeLike
that is irelevant. Most NT scholars doubt Jesus said those words for a number of sound historical reasons.
LikeLike
You are espousing old ceitical views that more recent Johannine scholars are rejecting. Free download on John by Dr Bauckham.
Click to access Johannine%20Jessus%20&%20Synoptic%20Jesus.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
in fact the vast majority of critical scholars still do not think Jesus said these words. That remains unchanged. Proof: just consult any standard critical introduction to the gospels.
Bauckham also has stated that these words were “put into the mouth of Jesus” – Muslims agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if a peasant preacher from Galilee said those words 2000 years ago, that doesn’t make him the creator of this universe
LikeLike
Indeed. But I find it interesting that even Christian NT scholars agree he did not say those words.
LikeLike
“even Christian NT scholars agree he did not say those words.”
Are you sure ? Can you name one ?
Dr. Ehrman whom you quote so often admits he is not a Christian in a text you recently reposted on this blog.
Writing about the Bible all the time hardly makes you a “Christian”. By that logic, Sam Shamoun and Robert Spencer would be Muslims.
LikeLike
Pick any critical scholar anywhere on Earth
LikeLike
Richard Bauckham has also authored a little known book entitled God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Consider these statements taken from this book:
‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’ (page 55)
‘We observed earlier [page 55] how John places Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self declaration of God – ‘I am he’ – on the lips of Jesus in the series of seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings.’ (page 63)
If the author of the Fourth Gospel knowingly placed the I am statements in ‘on the lips of Jesus’, then Jesus obviously by definition he did not say them, and John has invented sayings which countless generations of Christians have nevertheless taken as the actual words of Jesus.
Bauckham argues that the fourth gospel [John] stems from an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus,
namely, the disciple John. At the same time, however, Bauckham also acknowledges the significant
differences between the fourth gospel and the Synoptics and argues that John is a more reflective and a highly interpreted account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Regarding the four gospels in general, he concludes:
‘In all four Gospels we have the history of Jesus only in the form of testimony, the testimony of involved participants who responded in faith to the disclosure of God in these events. In testimony fact and interpretation are inextricable; in this testimony empirical sight and spiritual perception are inseparable’
.
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 411.
As we have already seem above, regarding the gospel of John Bauckham says:
All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of
the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more
thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus. (Ibid. p. 410.)
According to Bauckham, the eyewitness author of the gospel of John did not just simply rehash
mere eyewitness reports, but he also weaved into his story of Jesus his highly reflective
interpretations and understanding of the events:
… we can also apply the contrast between Mark (or the Synoptics in general) and John more
widely. The greater selectivity of events recorded, the more continuous narrative with its more
strongly delineated plot, the lengthy discourses and debates – all these distinctive features of the Gospel of John, as compared with the Synoptics, are what make possible the much fuller
development of the author’s own interpretation of Jesus and his story, just as comparable features of the works of the Greco-Roman historians enable the expression of their own understanding of the history, making their works more than mere reports of what the eyewitnesses said. But in the case of the Gospel of John these characteristics are linked with its claim to be entirely the testimony of an author who was himself an eyewitness.
In this case, the whole historiographic process of eyewitness observation and participation, interrogation of other eyewitnesses, arrangement and narrativization in the formation of an integrated and rhetorically persuasive work – all this was the work of an eyewitness, whose interpretation was, of course, in play at every level of the process, but in what one might think of as a cumulative manner, such that the finished Gospel has a high degree of highly reflective interpretation. The eyewitness claim justifies [really?] this degree of interpretation for a context in which the direct reports of the eyewitnesses were the most highly valued forms of testimony to Jesus. In the case of the other Gospels it was important that the form of the eyewitness testimonies was preserved in the Gospels. The more reflective interpretive Gospel of John does not, by contrast, assimilate the eyewitness reports
beyond recognition into its own elaboration of the story, but is, as it stands, the way one
eyewitness understood what he and others had seen. The author’s eyewitness status authorizes the
interpretation. Thus, whereas scholars have often supposed that this Gospel could not have been
written by an eyewitness because of its high degree of interpretation of the events and the words of Jesus, by contrast with the Synoptics, in fact the high degree of interpretation is appropriate precisely because this is the only one of the canonical Gospels that claims eyewitness authorship.
(Ibid. pp. 410 – 411.)
Note that Bauckham does not deny the “highly reflective interpretational” status of the gospel of John. He only justifies it by arguing that the author was an eyewitness.
In light of the above, even if we are to accept the fourth gospel as a product of an eyewitness
(and it should be noted that most experts disagree with Bauckham), it does not mean that we can
simply read off from its surface the words attributed to Jesus as if Jesus literally uttered them in during historical ministry.
LikeLike
I have no problem with any of this. You seem to think that ancient biography was verbatim scribed. That is not how ancient historiography worked. To place something onto the lips of Jesus need not mean fabrication. For example, it could be an accurate summary of Jesus’ teaching and theology. More so if John is eyewitness testimony. These citations do not prove what you want them to.
Let your readers consider an example: I meet Paul Williams in London one afternoon and Paul tells me that later that afternoon he will “watch a game between Man U and Chelsea…”
….at dinner I meet with Burhanuddin. i tell Burhanuddin that “Paul Williams is at the footy….”
…could anybody rightly accuse me of fabrications or inaccurate reporting? Likewise, John does not need to verbatim cite Jesus’ words to accurately represent his teachings. It is a shame that modern critics are often so rigid in applying wrong hermeneutics to ancient biography.
The emphasis that the arabs put on isnaad and narration are not the same criteria one uses for ancient Roman and Greek biography.
LikeLike
Intellect wrote:
When you open every chapter of the Quran, don’t you read about the compassionate, merciful, gracious, beneficent God?
Yes, except chapter 9 – Repentance التوبه or “The Immunity” البراءه
Of course I knew that, but Allah’s compassion and mercy is capricious and unknown. You cannot know for sure if Allah will have compassion or mercy on you, because even that is “if Allah wills” ( Ensha’ allah)
ان شاء الله
Chapter 9:4, you brought the phrase, “Allah loves the righteous”. Yes, you have to first be good and righteous and obey Allah, then Allah will love you, except, “If Allah wills”. He may not love you. Al Ghazzali, the famous Muslim philosopher and theologian said something similar to this: “Even if we are good and righteous, Allah can send us to the hell fire if He wants to, and we have no right to question” (Abdullah Kunde quoted this at the end of his debate with Samuel Green on Salvation).
Google and search for “Still looking for two references to famous Al Ghazzali quotes” at my blog, apologetics and agape. (April 4, 2014) It does into depth into the issues of the love of God and the great difference between Christianity and Islam.
I agree that love is a quality and attribute. God acts out of His nature.
You wrote: I say;
God cannot be love itself, as love by itself is not a being, person or a spirit but a word, an attribute or characteristics of a being for love does not have weight and occupy space or has consciousness by itself,
But Hobb حب or mohabah محبه is not one of the 99 names of Allah. ودود “Wodud” is, which means more like “congenial, friendly”. Not as deep as Mohabah or Hobb.
Is Truth (Al Haqq الحق ) a “thing, substance”, etc. as you said, is “Allah Al Haqq” الله الحق ؟ ? Is Allah The Truth?
You don’t have assurance of His love though. You have to earn His love and be good first, then maybe He will love you; but you can never be sure.
But, the God of the Bible is love, because love is relationship, and the Trinity was in spiritual relationship from eternity past.
“God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
“I write these things to you so that you who believe in the name of the only Son of God may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13
Do you know for sure that you have eternal life?
LikeLike
Muslims are guaranteed paradise and God’s love.
LikeLike
You are so boring
LikeLike
>ودود “Wodud” is, which means more like “congenial, friendly”. Not as deep as Mohabah or Hobb.
No it doesnt.
See:
LikeLike
Does that dictionary give any more analysis of wudood ودود ?
there is a difference between wudood ودود , Mohabah محبه , and Eshq عشق
Wudood is more like phileo – friendly and brotherly love
Mohabah is closer to Agape in Greek and Hesed in Hebrew – deeper lovingkindness
Eshq is romantic marital love between man and woman
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Intellect wrote:
When you open every chapter of the Quran, don’t you read about the compassionate, merciful, gracious, beneficent God?
Yes, except chapter 9 – Repentance التوبه or “The Immunity” البراءه
Of course I knew that, but Allah’s compassion and mercy is capricious and unknown. You cannot know for sure if Allah will have compassion or mercy on you, because even that is “if Allah wills” (Ensha’ Allah)
ان شاء الله
I say;
Have you been to heaven and back on earth to know for sure that you will have Christ’s love and that he has a place for you in heaven?
Christ’s love is also unknown because, no one has been to heaven or paradise and back on earth and prove to us that Christians have a guarantee to heaven. It is childish to be saying “I have guarantee to heaven” because all religions in this world believe that. Don’t you think Hindus, Buddhist, Voodoo priests, Mormons, Jews etc. also believe and have so many guarantees in their scripture to suggest they are saved? They are guaranteed heaven?
For God sake Mr. Ken, it is not an argument to say Christians are guaranteed heaven. Muslims are guaranteed heaven too. Insha Allah means Allah is the ultimate and final judge, and respect for Allah to be the final judge. It also means once we are still on earth, we have to continue to strive for paradise as Muslims and not to relax and become complacent like how so many Church Fathers and Mega Church Pastors Like Eddie Lee Long, Jimmy Swaggart, Tedd Haggard and Christian Politicians like Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Wiener etc. and Christian entertainers like Bill Cosby etc. who fooled themselves into believing heaven is for them, so they can go and do sin.
After they were caught, they will cry and ask God for forgiveness and they repent. Ah, I thought Jesus Christ has already died for their sins and heaven is guaranteed for them. When Jimmy Swaggart and others was crying and asking for God Mercy, I said, oh, so it means Jesus Christ’s blood is useless when a Christian commits sin, and that, the real thing which is sincere repentance is the key here and not Jesus Christ’s blood?
There is clear evidence in this world that, Christians, upon their acceptance of Jesus Christ’s as their personal saviour, are not better than any human being when it comes to sin. We are all not free from sin as far as we remain on the surface of this earth.
That is why Muslims will continue to humble themselves to their God, and will not brag no matter the guarantee we have.
If you tell me the above are not Christians, they will also curse you and say you are not a Christian. How dare you call yourself a Christian and call others not Christians because they sin. Who tells you that a Christian does not sin?
You said;
Chapter 9:4, you brought the phrase, “Allah loves the righteous”. Yes, you have to first be good and righteous and obey Allah, then Allah will love you, except, “If Allah wills”. He may not love you. Al Ghazzali, the famous Muslim philosopher and theologian said something similar to this: “Even if we are good and righteous, Allah can send us to the hell fire if He wants to, and we have no right to question” (Abdullah Kunde quoted this at the end of his debate with Samuel Green on Salvation).
Google and search for “Still looking for two references to famous Al Ghazzali quotes” at my blog, apologetics and agape. (April 4, 2014) It does into depth into the issues of the love of God and the great difference between Christianity and Islam.
I say;
Not even God who is the ultimate power of everything, if you meet a stronger person than you, he can beat you up and burn you in fire if he wills and you cannot do anything how much more the all-powerful God?. Yes, He can burn us if He wills but He is a God of Just, Mercy and Compassion, so He will not do that.
Mr. Ken, does your God not have will to do whatever He wants? Your God’s love is also capricious because He does not love the work of Satan, Satan or sinners. He has hell fire waiting for them. Is it not so?
You said;
I agree that love is a quality and attribute. God acts out of His nature.
I say;
God Bless you for agreeing with this piece of truth and fact.
You said;
Is Truth (Al Haqq الحق) a “thing, substance”, etc. as you said, is “Allah Al Haqq” الله الحق ؟? Is Allah The Truth
I say;
Based on your acceptance of love as quality and attribute, truth is also quality and attribute of God and all will not be counted as God Himself.
You Mr. Ken Temple can be Kind, truthful and trustworthy at the same time and still be one human being and not two or three human beings because kindness, truthfulness and trustworthiness are all not substances, beings, persons etc. for that matter.
You said;
You wrote: I say;
God cannot be love itself, as love by itself is not a being, person or a spirit but a word, an attribute or characteristics of a being for love does not have weight and occupy space or has consciousness by itself,
But Hobb حب or mohabah محبه is not one of the 99 names of Allah. ودود “Wodud” is, which means more like “congenial, friendly”. Not as deep as Mohabah or Hobb.
I say;
You are not an Arabic scholar, so you cannot decide which word is suitable for “love” in the Quran.
Wudud certainly means “love”, “lover, affectionate” in Arabic and it is one of the 99 names of Allah
I am sorry, do you want the love to be deep to mean “sex” like making “love” with my wife to have a child and have a relationship with them and know how relationship is, and know what it means?
If we start to think about that, then we are blaspheming because God does not have to make sex with Mary the mother of Jesus to conceive Jesus and have relationship and know what and how relationship means to relate with Mankind.
God is self-sufficient and He does not need a Son and learn how relationship is, to use it to relate to us the human beings He created.
God relate to all of us every day without a Son. Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaac and all the prophets of God relate to God without any Son or Holy Spirit because Jesus said if he does not Go, the Holy Spirit will not come, so Moses, Joseph, Noah etc. relate and have spiritual connection with the Almighty God without a Son or Holy Spirit, just like Muslims and which is Islam.
You said;
You don’t have assurance of His love though. You have to earn His love and be good first, then maybe He will love you; but you can never be sure.
I say;
Hitler was a Christian, because of your believe so was he guaranteed heaven? Does he have assurance of heaven? How about Joseph Kone of the Lord Resistance Army of Uganda. He is a confessed Christian who kidnap and chop people hands and feet and rape and kill others. Does Jesus accept this wicked into heaven? Because you blame Islam of advocating good, so if your Jesus will accept this bad in heaven for his love for them, the victims of those brutality will not be happy about that.
Don’t you have to be good and not do bad clean your sin before Jesus will accept you in Paradise? What is the hell for? For those who are sinners and do not accept Christ. So, you have to earn Christ love, otherwise the hell fire is waiting for you. Since he is God he can of course use his will to do whatever he wants.
If a gay Christian and a Gay pastor who is officiating gay marriage every week in his Christian Church will go to heaven and are assured and guarantee to go to heaven, why will you not allow gay marriage in your church and support gay marriage because they are Christian and a Christian is guaranteed heaven no matter what he does. They are guaranteed heaven, so support gay marriage.
You said;
But, the God of the Bible is love, because love is relationship, and the Trinity was in spiritual relationship from eternity past.
“God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
I say;
The Bible says God is One and only and He is alone. He is self-sufficient and does not need anything, I mean anything including relationship, to know how relationship is to relate to us.
He created relationship for human as Son, Mother, Father etc. and relate to us in special way as He deems fit.
1.”You alone [bad], Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20
Mr. Ken do you know the meaning of alone? The Bible clearly says, God is alone, so I do not see alone as relationship.
2.”Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
3.”Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
Mr. Ken, apart from Yahweh, no one else, so I do not see any relationship with anyone here. Is Yahweh divided into 3 to have relationship and learn how relationship is, to relate to human beings like how father and son are having relationship, love and affection?
3.”there is no God but one [hen]” 1 Corinthians 8:4
4.”The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one [hen] Lord; “Mark 12:29
5.”you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only [monos] God?” John 5:44
JazakAllah Khairan
Thanks
LikeLike
Your own scholars and theologians say no. It is “Enshall’allah, If Allah wills. there is no guarantee.
LikeLike
The Quran is clear: there is promise from God that all Muslims will go to paradise. And God’s promises can be trusted.
‘God has promised the believers, both men and women paradise’
9:72.
Ken refuted.
LikeLike
Excellent point Paul.
The Qur’an is clear on the promise from God again in 4:122
“But the ones who believe and do righteous deeds – We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. [It is] the promise of Allah , [which is] truth, and who is more truthful than Allah in statement.”
Ken, your point is incoherent….yes, we are not omnicient….we don’t know our hearts with 100% knowledge like God. So, if a Muslim says inshallah for paradise, he is recognizing that he is confident that he is good and is doing good deeds but only God knows to what extent someone is sincere.
We don’t necessarily have to be 100% sincere…God knows what the standards are to go to paradise or hell…after all He is God.
The verse that follows (Surah 4, 123) from God says, “Paradise is not [obtained] by your wishful thinking nor by that of the People of the Scripture. Whoever does a wrong will be recompensed for it, and he will not find besides Allah a protector or a helper.”
So if someone is a sincere Muslim who really believes in God and the Day of judgement, then that the sincerity from that person would naturally be expected to result in “good deeds”
Bottom line: If anyone accepts Islam sincerely, then he/she will be in tremendous pleasure for eternity.
The Qur’an is from God….every verse sounds like just what one would expect from the One, the cause of all existence, the Designer of the universe, the Tester of this world of tests, the Just, the Merciful.
LikeLike
So, are you saying that the Qur’an teaches some kind of “faith alone” doctrine?
Surah 9:72 is in the context of chapter 9 – repentance – lots of other verses around it, both before and afterward.
there are other verses around it that say it is not enough to just “believe” – they have to act, do good deeds, and if they don’t fight in Jihad, then they are not true believers. (9:81) The true believers spend their wealth and their lives (9:88-89); and they kill and are killed. (9:111)
LikeLike
Common Sense: If you truly believe in Islam, good deeds will emanate from you.
Doing good deeds is a form of measure to see are you really a believer.
If such is the case, then you are promised paradise by GOD. Guaranteed.
If you aren’t praying to God regularly, are not helping the poor by the minimum charity, if you are not being good to your parents, etc. etc. then are you really a believer.
As simple as 2+2=4.
People who are good go to paradise. People who are evil go to hell.
If you complicate it, you are only misleading yourself.
LikeLike
Muslims are going to paradise and non-muslims are going to hell. Maybe you used “good” and “evil” synonymously for these two terms. That is the islamic belief.
LikeLike
Jukti,
This is what God says in the Qur’an about who goes to paradise…
“Paradise is not [obtained] by your (Muslim) wishful thinking nor by that of the People of the Scripture. Whoever does a wrong will be recompensed for it, and he will not find besides God a protector or a helper.” (Surah 4, verse 123)
“And they say, “None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian.” That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, “Produce your proof, if you should be truthful.”
Yes [on the contrary], whoever submits his face in Islam to God while being a doer of good will have his reward with his Lord. And no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (Surah 2, vv 111-112)
“Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians – those [among them] who believed in God and the Last Day and did righteousness – no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (Surah 5, verse 69)
[Please note that the translator I used by chance used past tense in the verse above but most translators use the present tense]
But for those who want to remain Christian, they need to be careful and not say that God is Jesus as a few verses it say…
“They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” God is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship God , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with God – God has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.” (surah 5, 72)
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
So, are you saying that the Qur’an teaches some kind of “faith alone” doctrine?
I say;
I bet, Christian homosexuals, prostitutes have faith alone in Jesus Christ. If by faith alone they are saved, why not allow gay marriage in your Church. Roman Catholics believe in faith alone doctrine and so you will meet them in your paradise. Hitler has faith alone in Christ, and so you will meet him in paradise.
Islam is not faith alone at all, do you hear me Mr. Ken? Islam is not faith alone religion. It goes with good deeds. It abhors sins, bad deeds and who does that, even, if he is a Muslim, without sincere repentance will be punished by God.
If Hitler were to be a Muslim, he will be punished. Hitler is in paradise according to you because of faith alone. All gay marriages are free as far as they have faith in Christ alone. Ken why don’t you support gay marriage.
You said;
Of course I knew that, but Allah’s compassion and mercy is capricious and unknown. You cannot know for sure if Allah will have compassion or mercy on you, because even that is “if Allah wills” ( Ensha’ allah)
ان شاء الله
I say;
Do you think we Muslims expect our God to humble himself to us like you expecting the Creator of all things to humble Himself to you for you to disrespect him by bragging that He loves you by force?
We Muslims do always humble to our Creator by saying Insha Allah which means God willing, if even we know for sure something will happen. We know God is the final Judge and not us and so not only heaven but everything our scripture and prophet have trained us to use God Willing Insha Allah. Some Christians like Sam Shamoun have starting using that and copying it from Islam and saying Lord willing. I applaud Sam for that on this one. May be you Ken, can start using that and respect your God instead of becoming superior to your God and saying for sure he will save you to paradise and meanwhile you have not been to paradise and snap some pictures with you I phone to show us. What sure is that?
We all believe and are sure, but it is not point of argument as it is childish, because I am sure, I am sure without proof is waste of time, so next time to not bring “sure” argument here without proof, because we are all sure.
Thanks
LikeLike
It is clear when it suits you Paul. I would have thought “fight the unbelievers” was fairly clear, but you have gone to great lengths to show otherwise.
Yet on this issue you allow no nuance? That seems like inconsistency.
LikeLike
Not really; it says “those who believe and do good works” will, “Enshallah”, go to paradise, but you can never be sure; and furthermore, according to your scholars, the only for sure way to know for sure one is going to paradise is dying in Jihad.
But since the Qur’an is not even God’s word or promise, it all means nothing. One cannot trust that man-made book from one man’s claim.
But the Bible can be trusted, because it is God-breathed. Revelation stopped with the apostles of Jesus. John was the last apostle of Jesus to write, along with Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, who wrote that “the faith was once for all delivered to the saints” Jude, verse 3.
Since the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, and 3 letters and the book of Revelation; either before 70 AD or between 80-96 AD; it does not matter what critical scholars say.
So all of the “I am” statements are Truth, becuase they are God-breathed, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written by an eyewitness and apostle of Jesus the Messiah.
LikeLike
Of course the Quran is God’s Word – it even claims to be such – unlike the Bible.
Even your most conservative New Testament scholars (FF Bruce and Bauckham – just 2 examples) have very serious doubts that Jesus actually said the words attributed to him in John. So we cannot with any confidence put our very salvation in the hands of such a book.
That would be a big gamble. And Muslims do not gamble.
LikeLike
In your case the statement “I AM presenting fallacies” is true
LikeLike
Also, the quote from Richard Bauckham on the Gospel of John, the Synoptics, and the “I am” statements, provided by Paulus is excellent and proves your arguments wrong. Even so, John was an eyewitness and Jesus did say all of them, as God’s word is infallible and inerrant, because it is “God-breathed”. θεοπνευστος
LikeLike
‘Even so, John was an eyewitness and Jesus did say all of them’
not according to Bauckham.
Ken I have cited quotes above from Bauckham’s work which refutes Paulus’ wild claims. You might care to read them for yourself. For example:
Richard Bauckham in his God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament writes:
‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’ (page 55)
‘We observed earlier [page 55] how John places Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self declaration of God – ‘I am he’ – on the lips of Jesus in the series of seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings.’ (page 63)
LikeLike
Yeah, I remember you putting that up before at your old web-site.
Bauckham is wrong there. How does he know?
How does he know that John “put them on the lips of Jesus” ?
Why not, “John, as eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry and life and death and resurrection, recalled the events and words of Jesus and wrote them down, as also promised by Jesus in sending the Holy Spirit, He will remind you of what I have said to you.” why not that ?
25 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
LikeLike
that was John 14:25-27
LikeLike
‘Bauckham is wrong there. How does he know?’
I love it when you turn on your own Christian scholars when you don’t like what they say!
First you say Buckham’s work is “excellent ” – then you arrogantly dismiss a top expert in the field by blurting out “how does he know?”
He knew well enough for you before! Read his books Ken – read – digest – learn. That’s what I do to find out how he knows…
LikeLike
The quote that Paulus supplied was excellent; but the one who supplied is terrible.
Bauckham is not infallible. Only God is infallible, and His Word, the Bible.
LikeLike
oops; typo
the one you supplied was terrible.
LikeLike
would you like me to quote another brilliant evangelical scholar, FF Bruce, on John’s gospel? He wrote a whole commentary on the book. He had some very interesting things to say…
LikeLike
it was the same man who produced both writings – Bauckham is right about the sayings of Jesus in John and virtually all Bible scholars agree with him.
How can we trust a book to give us the unvarnished truth when it puts words into the mouths of people – words they did not actually say?
You can say it is ‘infallible’ all you like Ken – but your own evangelical scholars prove otherwise.
LikeLike
The Qur’an itself says the Injeel is infallible, since it is inspired – Surah 2:136, 5:46-47; 5:66-68; 10:94
But don’t you think God has the power to speak to the disciples/ apostles (Peter, Matthew, John, apostle Paul, James, Jude) and friends of the disciples (Mark, Luke, writer of Hebrews) to bring to their remembrance and write those 27 books?
Bauckham also calls Isaiah 40-66, “Deutero-Isaiah” = 2nd Isaiah, another liberal theory.
It is disappointing that they gave ammunition to you to use against the truth. They are wrong to that.
It seems they don’t believe in God’s ability and power to inspire and speak to the apostles hearts and guide them in what they are to write down.
Of course Bauckham and F. F. Bruce would not believe that the Qur’an is God’s Word, coming over 600 years later and with lots of historical mistakes and contradictions and emphasis on external religion and ritual and legal punishments and warfare.
LikeLike
you have your views and I have mine Ken.
In my personal experience of reading the Quran over a number of years now, I can testify to the Book’s profound wisdom, spiritual depth, and transforming power. It speaks powerfully to the human heart. Millions of people can testify to the same experience today throughout the world. It is deeply sad that you are deaf and blind to such spiritual truth Ken.
LikeLike
Your preaching is futile, as you are a sinner who cannot abide in Christ.
“Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him”
(1 John 3:6),
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9 NIV),
“We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin, the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one does not touch him” (1 John 5:18 NIV).
Obviously, then, you have never been born of God since you continue to sin, regardless.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1 – do you think those verses from 1 John mean, “no one who is born again will ever sin again” ?
or do they mean
“no one who is born again will continue to constantly practice sin” – as a life style, and without guilt or remorse or repentance and confession of their sin and struggling against their sinful thoughts and attitudes.
The actually mean, “will not keep on sinning as a continual practice”. Christians still sin and we still struggle with sin. the same letter says things that would contradict your interpretation – 1 John 1:5-10
A mark of maturity is ones own hatred of their own sinful thoughts and attitudes – like pride, arrogance, selfishness, lust, anger, greed, jealousy, etc. and seeking to overcome those sinful thought patterns.
LikeLike
Lame excuses Ken. It is easy to cherry pick verses from the Bible to suit your preconceived notions.
The most sinful thought pattern is to equate God with non-God.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
“no one who is born again will continue to constantly practice sin” – as a life style, and without guilt or remorse or repentance and confession of their sin and struggling against their sinful thoughts and attitudes.
I say;
Repentance? of their sins? as born again Christians? Mr. Ken, I thought Jesus had already died for their sins. If a born again Christian will repent when he sins just like how Muslim is expected to sincerely repent when he sins, then the death of Jesus is useless and it means Jesus did not die any ones sins.
Every religion advocates remorse and repentance when one sins. The death of Jesus is not strong enough to pay tor the sins committed by a born again Christians, and so the born again Christian has to repent makes the blood of Jesus and his death useless.
You were boasting and bragging that, faith alone is o.k. for Christians and criticizing Islam for talking of good deeds in addition to faith. Now, you are admitting born again Christians are oblige to do good deeds as well and that is after bad deed which is sin, they must repent. So, it is not faith alone or blood of Jesus for Christians but good deeds as well. You do not tell the truth when evangelizing and the beloved Jesus Al-Masih will not be happy about you and other evangelicals who do not tell the truth when evangelizing.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken, I do not think you need to allow PW the freedom to interpret these phrases outside of Bauckham’s own parameters, which is what Paul has done. Bauckham isn’t suggesting that they are fabrications (PW’s analysis), rather, he is suggesting they are accurate summations of Jesus’ teachings, from eyewitness testimony. Accurate eyewitness summations need not be verbatim. See my earlier comment for a modern example.
LikeLike
Just think about it rationally. If I witness a crime and offer testimony in court, am I required to cite verbatim what has transpired before my testimony is considered eyewitness and accurate? Of course not!
PW I think you need to revise your objections to gospel testimony. When assessed critically it quickly becomes clear that the criterian you demand is not practical, rational or historically accurate.
LikeLike
Ok, I agree with you, but Paul has quoted the sentences from Bauckham’s book, and page no. etc, and it looks pretty bad to me to say that the writer “put those words on the lips of Jesus”. To say, “the writer put those words on the lips of Jesus”, even if from eyewitness testimony; has already given Paul B. Williams and others ammunition to attack the Scriptures.
Also, as I recall, Bauckham doesn’t seem to believe that the apostle John actually wrote the Gospel of John, rather someone else; even if all an excellent summation and accurate account based on eyewitness accounts. Is he saying the writer of the Gospel of John is like Luke? (interviewing the eyewitnesses and being accurate)
I have Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Bauckham and have read a lot of it; and much of it is very good; but I don’t have his other works.
If you have more context from around those quotes that Paul W. has quoted for his polemical attacks, it would be good for you to provide the context that shows Bauckham is not doing what Paul is trying to do with his words.
LikeLike
Ken, here are some snippets from a lecture Bauckham gave,
“In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses I have tried to work through the implications of supposing that the eyewitnesses did not disappear from the early Christian movement as soon as they had formulated some traditions. The eyewitnesses were not only still alive through the relevant period, but were in touch with the Christian communities. The major eyewitnesses, such as the twelve apostles, were very well known. They would have remained throughout their lifetimes the accessible sources and authoritative guarantors of the traditions they themselves had formulated at the beginning. Moreover, as well as the major eyewitnesses, mostly the well known disciples of Jesus, there were also many minor eyewitnesses, who told the story perhaps of the miracle by which they themselves had been healed by Jesus or of some other encounter with Jesus that had changed their lives.
“The Gospels, as has been convincingly argued by recent scholars, should be generically classified as Grcco-Roman biographies (bioi). As contemporary biographies, written within living memory of their subject, they are the sort of biography that would be expected to share the best practice of contemporary historiography with regard to sources. The continuity, therefore, between the Jesus traditions in oral form and their incorporation in the Gospels should be seen as resembling the continuity between the eyewitnesses sources and their incorporation in historiographical works
“We find the same principle in John’s Gospel, where Jesus speaks to his disciples about the way they are to give testimony about him in the future: ‘you are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning.’8 This principle of eyewitness testimony ‘from the beginning’ must have been current in the early church. It is precisely the kind of qualification that mattered in ancient historiography that depended on eyewitness testimony, and it shows that the Gospel writers were aware of and intended to meet the expectations of readers who understood their work to be historical biography and would therefore look for indications of its sources in eyewitness testimony.”
With the forementioned, it would be impossible to conclude, as PW does, that Bauckham is suggesting that John’s gospel is full of fabrications and/ or can not be trusted. On the contrary, Bauckham’s entire thesis is that these gospels are ancient bio and therefore must be understood as the incorporation of oral tradition from eyewitness testimony. Whether John wrote John or not is irrelevant since the point Bauckham is making is that they fit the criteria of apostolicity and therefore its authority amd historical accuracy is based on these ancient criteria (much the same as Mark and Luke). This explains why verbatim accuracy is not a pre-requisite for accuracy or authority within the greco-roman bio literature (much the same as today).
LikeLike
Ken “The actually mean, “will not keep on sinning as a continual practice”. Christians still sin and we still struggle with sin. the same letter says things that would contradict your interpretation – 1 John 1:5-10”
Christians of the born-again-fundamentalist-evangelical kind like yourself tell us constantly “Jesus defeated sin and death” and the like. “He crushed the head of satan”, didn’t he? But still you are sinning and you are going to die.
LikeLike
Burhan u Deed برهان و دین (reason and religion) – see my explanation to “Intellect” below.
LikeLike
Ken “As I wrote above, Christ death takes away the legal guilt that separates us from a relationship with God, if RECEIVED BY faith.”
Ken, you are not saved by faith. It’s not a free gift. You have to do something good for it. You have “to do faith”. You have to accept Christ, and that is an conscious act. You are saved by works, if you are saved at all.
There is another problem involved. How do even start to do something good, i.e. believe the right thing, if you are totally depraved? This “divide” between God and you can only be bridged by doing a good act, the faith in Christ, but you cannot do good, as you are totally depraved. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
LikeLike
Hello M. Omer, you wrote :
“But for those who want to remain Christian, they need to be careful and not say that God is Jesus as a few verses it say…”
Put that way, this is not a very significative restriction on Christians. Virtually no Christian has never ever said that God is the Messiah. Virtually all Christians say that the Messiah is God.
By the way, let me congratulate you M. Omer for not doing what nearly all dawah carriers do, shamelessly changing the word order in the verse. I sincerely hope that many Muslims will follow your example in the future.
LikeLike
“They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” God is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship God , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with God – God has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.” (surah 5, 72)
The wording of the translation is quite surprising here for a native English speaker.
Every time I hear about this verse, I feel as if I’m before an undecoded message. It sounds a little like :
They are certainly liars who say, “The President of the United States is Gene Hackman.” Indeed, he who associates others with the President of the United States …”
But if I unduly say that Barack Obama is Gene Hackman, I’m not exactly “associating” the two, am I ?
At least not in normal English usage. One would say I’m identifying, confusing them.
LikeLike
Gary McKenzie
It is not confusing when you know who Barack Obama is and you also know who Gene Hackman is but association, so that they both share the presidency. God is not a man but Jesus is a man, and so saying he is God is associating a man with God and is very big, big sin without repentance, especially when you heard the correction from Islam and the Quran.
Our intellect, is not there for nothing, it is there to help in all our aspects of life including religion. You know a man is created and God is not created, so a man cannot be God.
If God en-cloth Himself into a human form, then He should be able to tell us the day of judgement, but not to lie and tell us that He does not know that day but his superior knows that day. Does God have a superior. Our common sense should drive us out of Christianity as Moses, Abraham, Isaac and all the prophets of God and their followers do believe God in their heart and have a spiritual connection with God without Son, Jesus or the Holy Spirit and that is Islam till today.
Thanks
LikeLike
Intellect wrote:
You said; (quoting me, Ken T.)
“no one who is born again will continue to constantly practice sin” – as a life style, and without guilt or remorse or repentance and confession of their sin and struggling against their sinful thoughts and attitudes.
I say;
Repentance? of their sins? as born again Christians? Mr. Ken, I thought Jesus had already died for their sins.
It seems you don’t understand the Christians doctrines of justification and sanctification and the differences between them. Do you? Can you articulate them? I think Paul Bilal Williams can, since he went to an Evangelical church for a while, is well read, and I would think he knows the doctrines and can articulate them.
If you cannot, then I would sincerely ask Paul B. Williams to explain the difference between justification by faith alone, and sanctification as a process of spiritual growth, effort, good works, deeper levels of repentance, after justification.
Jesus dying for our sins does not mean we will never sin again. It means the legal guilt that separates us from a relationship with God is taken away, and the promise of forgiveness and eternal life is ours, by faith in Christ. (no hell fire for the true believer when they die, and true peace with God now at the time of faith. See John 5:24; Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1
If a born again Christian will repent when he sins just like how Muslim is expected to sincerely repent when he sins, then the death of Jesus is useless and it means Jesus did not die any ones sins.
Except the difference is great, the difference between heaven and hell. As I wrote above, Christ death takes away the legal guilt that separates us from a relationship with God, if recieved by faith.
sin is three things:
l. the legal guilt that sends us to hell – see Matthew 5:21-30; Mark 7:20-23; James 2:10
2. a sinful nature/ disposition on the inside of us – 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:13-25 (similar to the Islamic concept of the Nafs Amareh – نفس اماره
3. The action / deed of sins (thoughts, actions, words)
Bassam Zawadi and Thaibiti Anyabwile had two very good debates on forgiveness and salvation in each religion. They are easy to find on the internet. Zawadi admitted that Islam is closer to Roman Catholicism and Arminianism because Muslims go to hell for a while to burn off their sins (like Purgatory in Roman Catholicism), but eventually, as I understand it, Muslims will eventually get out of hell, depending on how many sins that they have to “atone” for.
Every religion advocates remorse and repentance when one sins.
ok
The death of Jesus is not strong enough to pay tor the sins committed by a born again Christians, and so the born again Christian has to repent makes the blood of Jesus and his death useless.
“payment” does not mean “taking away the presence or nature of sin”, rather, it means “taking away the legal guilt and penalty for sin”. But someone who keeps on sinning without any remorse or repentance and says, “I have fire insurance, I can do what I want to” demonstrates that they were not changed into a new creature.
2 Corinthians 5:17 – “If any person is in Christ, he is a new creature, the old has passed away, behold new things have come.”
Christian are new and born again, and there has to be real change, good works and fruit, and hatred of their own sin and confession and repentance, to show that one really is a true believer. But those good works and changes are not in order to earn forgiveness and salvation and God’s love; rather they are the result of God first pouring out His love and grace into our hearts.
“hope does not disappoint, for the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” Romans 5:5
“having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” Romans 5:1
“God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
You were boasting and bragging that, faith alone is o.k. for Christians and criticizing Islam for talking of good deeds in addition to faith.
I am not trying to boast or brag, salvation in Christ is a gift of God’s grace and love.
Criticizing Islam – one of us is wrong and one of us is right; just having a friendly debate. Can you handle constructive criticism without getting angry ?
In Islam, you have to earn eternal life, by faith and good works and you never know for sure if you have done enough good deeds, or if your good deeds had the right motives, etc.
Now, you are admitting born again Christians are oblige [sic. obligated ] to do good deeds as well and that is after bad deed which is sin, they must repent.
As a result of true faith, not as a condition first in order to earn or get God’s love and forgiveness. See the difference?
The Qur’an says, “Allah will love you if you first love Him”.
The Bible says “you cannot love God first, you are a sinner; God has to love you and change you first; then you are able to love Him and other people.”
see the difference?
So, it is not faith alone or blood of Jesus for Christians but good deeds as well.
As I explained above, faith alone in the atonement of Christ alone (Romans 3:19-28) does justify us so that we have peace with God and a spiritual relationship with God and forgiveness and going to heaven. More repentence when we sin and make mistakes, and Good works follow and are the result of true faith, not the cause of it.
You do not tell the truth when evangelizing and the beloved Jesus Al-Masih will not be happy about you and other evangelicals who do not tell the truth when evangelizing.
I am sincerely trying to tell the truth and explaining it to you and others.
Ask Paul Williams if I have explained what Evangelical Protestant Christianity teaches accurately. He disagrees with it now, but, Paul, have I explained what Evangelicals sincerely believe the Bible teaches?
Thanks
Thanks for reading and sincerely thinking about these things. I hope you and others will give attention to this. I wish you peace, which is found in Jesus Al- Masih.
Jesus Al Masih said,
“Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you; let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid.” John 14:27
LikeLike
Ken Temple
I am o.k. with friendly discussion with you. If I mistakenly step on your feet, I apologize.
You said;
Jesus dying for our sins does not mean we will never sin again. It means the legal guilt that separates us from a relationship with God is taken away, and the promise of forgiveness and eternal life is ours, by faith in Christ. (No hell fire for the true believer when they die, and true peace with God now at the time of faith. See John 5:24; Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1
I say;
Well, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Noah, Solomon and all the prophets of God and their followers were not separate from God and they do not believe Jesus died for their sins or had a Holy Spirit to have a spiritual relationship to God, because Jesus said he has to go before the Holy Spirit comes.
Jesus did not die at the time of Noah, Moses etc., so it is still absolutely wrong to say Jesus died for the sins of mankind.
Moses, Isaac, Abraham etc. had spiritual relationship with God without Son, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Moses, Jacob etc. and their followers who believed them will go to heaven and without hell fire, but Jesus did not die at that time and Holy Spirit was not born or created, because Jesus said, if he does not go, the Holy Spirit will not come.
You said;
If you cannot, then I would sincerely ask Paul B. Williams to explain the difference between justification by faith alone, and sanctification as a process of spiritual growth, effort, good works, deeper levels of repentance, after justification.
I say;
If the good work is not important, why not ignore it, but added good works after justification? So, it is the same as in Islam we also have our relationship in God by believing God is Only One as the Bible says and believe in the Prophets, the hereafter and the scriptures and do good deeds. The faith is our justification by faith and the good work is our sanctification as a process of spiritual growth, effort, good works, deeper levels of repentance, after justification.
So, the blood of Jesus alone is not enough, for a Christian, but the Christian needs sanctification, which is good works. And to question why Islam must add good works to faith, is to be wicked because, do you want Muslims to be justified by faith alone and not good deeds? So that they get the license like how some Mega Church pastors like Eddie Lee Long keep molesting male children in his church? No way, good deeds is important and goes hand in hand with faith.
You said;
Jesus dying for our sins does not mean we will never sin again. It means the legal guilt that separates us from a relationship with God is taken away, and the promise of forgiveness and eternal life is ours, by faith in Christ. (No hell fire for the true believer when they die, and true peace with God now at the time of faith. See John 5:24; Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1
I say;
A Christian still has to repent when he sins and ask for forgiveness, otherwise when he sins without repenting he will be punished, still Jesus death seems useless with all due respect to your explanations.
You said;
If a born again Christian will repent when he sins just like how Muslim is expected to sincerely repent when he sins, then the death of Jesus is useless and it means Jesus did not die any ones sins.
Except the difference is great, the difference between heaven and hell. As I wrote above, Christ death takes away the legal guilt that separates us from a relationship with God, if received by faith.
I say;
Muslims worship the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Joseph, Noah, etc. and Jesus Christ did not die for their followers to take the legal guilt that separate them from relationship with God.
Are you telling me Moses or Noah etc. and their followers did not have a relationship with God? Jesus did not die for them, but they and their followers have their heart in God and always have spiritual relationship with God. Jesus was not born at that time, let alone die for their sins. We Muslims worship their God i.e. the God of Moses and the rest without anyone dying for our sins like them i.e. Moses and the rest and no any Holy Spirit, because pagans and idol worshipers use spirit to have their relation with God for centuries before Christianity. It seems Christianity borrowed from this pagan cults.
You said;
They are easy to find on the internet. Zawadi admitted that Islam is closer to Roman Catholicism and Arminianism because Muslims go to hell for a while to burn off their sins (like Purgatory in Roman Catholicism), but eventually, as I understand it, Muslims will eventually get out of hell, depending on how many sins that they have to “atone” for.
I say;
Muslims who do good deeds which is part of salvation will not step in hell at all. Bad Muslims, will of course spend some time in hell before coming back eventually in heaven as they are guaranteed heaven at all cost.
Bad Muslims who are killing people without justification or with bad justification will be punished for that either here in this world or the hereafter and that is what makes Islam thee best because God is just.
If your Christian justification by faith alone without good deeds stand, then the Christian gay marriages to spoil our children and society, prostitutes bad Church Fathers and this bad pastors we keep seeing will go to heaven without punishment and that will be bad for the victims of these wicked men, because your Christianity allowed this despicable act to happen to them, for these pastors believe they are guaranteed heaven, no matter what they do without punishment. If they will be punished for sins they commit, then Jesus did not die for their sins. As simple as that.
You said;
“Payment” does not mean “taking away the presence or nature of sin”, rather, it means “taking away the legal guilt and penalty for sin”. But someone who keeps on sinning without any remorse or repentance and says, “I have fire insurance, I can do what I want to” demonstrates that they were not changed into a new creature.
I say;
Once again, a Christian who has faith in Christ and continue to sin without sincere repentance, just like Muslim will be punished according to your explanation above. So the death of Jesus did not save the sin of that Christian. So Jesus death is baseless with all due respect to your explanation.
You said;
Now, you are admitting born again Christians are oblige [Sic. obligated] to do good deeds as well and that is after bad deed which is sin, they must repent.
As a result of true faith, not as a condition first in order to earn or get God’s love and forgiveness. See the difference?
The Qur’an says, “Allah will love you if you first love Him”.
The Bible says “you cannot love God first, you are a sinner; God has to love you and change you first; then you are able to love Him and other people.”
See the difference?
I say;
I know there is a big precondition before the Christian God loves you and that is to believe he died for your sins or is your personal savior otherwise the hell is waiting for you. This is not love. It includes innocent babies who do not know who Jesus is.
In Islam, because God created us with intellect, freewill and choice, we are responsible for our sins and no one and we did not inherit our sins from anyone. For the love of God He loves all of us whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Idol worshiper etc. that is why He nourish us as the Nourisher, care for us as a Carer, and Sustain us as a Sustainer etc.
There is good and bad or evil and we are free to choose because we have choice and not like angels and other creatures who have no choice than to serve God.
Nobody love evil, bad or Satan. Even God with all His love attribute does not love evil or Satan, so He sent down his scriptures, messengers, and sometimes angels to guide us away from evil, Satan or from doing badly like raping someone’s wife which is obviously not good whether you are a Muslim or Christian and must pay for the bad act.
For the love of God to all mankind, and not Muslims alone, Messengers, scriptures, truth and the intellect are there to guide us to the right path for the love of God for us and not the blood of Jesus which is not there during the time of Moses, Noah, Joseph and the rest of the prophets.
The God of the Quran exonerate Himself by saying if he does not send prophet or warner to warn you from Satan and evil and bad, them He will not punish you.
We are created with choice, freewill and intellect, so we are accountable for our sins and not the blood of Jesus which was not there during Moses time.
The people of Jacobs time looks at the message of Jacob from God to save them, and not the blood of Jesus because it is not there.
JazakAllah Khairan
Thanks
LikeLike
Well, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Noah, Solomon and all the prophets of God and their followers were not separate from God and they do not believe Jesus died for their sins or had a Holy Spirit to have a spiritual relationship to God, because Jesus said he has to go before the Holy Spirit comes.
Jesus did not die at the time of Noah, Moses etc., so it is still absolutely wrong to say Jesus died for the sins of mankind.
those are all prophets before Jesus; they are all in the Old Testament – the Torah, Psalms and Poetic and Wisdon writings, and Prophets. (TaNaK – Torah, Nabi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (writings)) – they happened before Jesus came and they pointed to the Messiah.
Genesis 15:6 (Genesis is the first book in the 5 books of the law of Moses)
Abram believed in the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Abram (Abraham) was justified by faith alone. “to be counted/credited as righteous” is the same thing as “to be justified” = to be counted as righteous. He believed in the LORD and the promise of the one who would come from his own body. (see Genesis 15:1-6) and Galatians 3:16 says the one seed was about Christ / the Messiah / Al Masih, who would come later through the line of Abraham, and David.
See Matthew 1:1-17.
Habakkuk 2:4 – “my righteous one shall live by faith”
Quoted in Romans 1:17 and Hebrews 10:38
Habakkuk is one of the prophets.
Psalm 32:2 (quoted in Romans 4 – see Romans 4:1-16)
Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord does not count against them
and in whose spirit is no deceit.
Nobody love evil, bad or Satan.
Did you mean “Nobody loves evil, bad, or Satan” ??
Even the Qur’an disagrees with you on that:
“And if Allah were to seize mankind for their wrong-doing, He would not leave on it (the earth) a single moving (living) creature, but He postpones them for an appointed term and when their term comes, neither can they delay nor can they advance it an hour (or a moment).” Surah 16:61 (Hilali-Khan translation)
“And your Lord is Most Forgiving, Owner of Mercy. Were He to call them to account for what they have earned, then surely, He would have hastened their punishment. But they have their appointed time, beyond which they will find no escape.” Surah 18:58 Hilali-Khan
“If Allah were to punish men according to what they deserve. He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: when their Term expires, verily Allah has in His sight all His Servants.” Surah 35:45
“O ye who believe! follow not Satan’s footsteps: if any will follow the footsteps of Satan, he will (but) command what is shameful and wrong: and were it not for the grace and mercy of Allah on you, not one of you would ever have been pure: but Allah doth purify whom He pleases: and Allah is One Who hears and knows (all things).” S. 24:21
—-
All people are born in sin. We have free will to choose as we desire/want. Our desires and wants and motivations are the determiner of our choices. All people are selfish and prideful and have selfish motives. All our choices are tainted a little bit or corrupted by some level of selfishness or pride. That is what it means that our wills are in bondage to sin. Even when you do good, you do it for motives that are partly tainted by selfishness or self-glory. Left to ourselves, naturally we become even more evil. That is why we have to teach children right and wrong and train them in right behavior. Otherwise they will be even more selfish, lustful, prideful, arrogant, vindictive, violent, angry, spoiled, greedy, etc. Without rules and discipline and accountability; people grow more and more evil.
Until Christ sets us free – our wills are enslaved to sin.
Jesus Al Masih said, “Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin, is the slave of sin.” John 8:34
That is why you need Jesus – you need to be set free; your will needs to be set free.
Al Masih said “If you abide in My Word, you will truly be My disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32
You wrote a lot more; but I have other work to do and it is late here and I need some sleep.
I hope you will look up the verses and think more about these issues.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Good night. When you wake up this is for you.
You said;
those are all prophets before Jesus; they are all in the Old Testament – the Torah, Psalms and Poetic and Wisdon writings, and Prophets. (TaNaK – Torah, Nabi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (writings)) – they happened before Jesus came and they pointed to the Messiah.
I say;
No were did the above said Jesus died for the sins of mankind. If Jesus death is important to save mankind, It would have been stated clearly. So Jesus death did not save those prophets and their followers before him and logically, rationally and truthfully it cannot save the people and the prophets after him. You get it?
What saved the old prophets and their people is the same thing the will save the new prophets and their people, because God is not bad enough to change salvation to entirely different thing that deals with blood and death.
What saved the old prophets and their people is believe in One God, his prophets, scriptures, message, law and the day of judgement and good deeds and that is Islam and that is what will still continue to save mankind till the world ends.
You said;
Nobody love evil, bad or Satan.
Did you mean “Nobody loves evil, bad, or Satan” ??
Even the Qur’an disagrees with you on that:
I say;
Where did the Quran says someone love evil, bad or Satan?
You said;
All people are born in sin.
I say;
Babies are born pure and sinless because they do not know right or wrong. This is were your God Jesus Christ love is in question because he will put all babies in hell because they do not believe he died for their sins and that is the requirement to be a Christian and be saved.
God of Islam will put all babies whether the children of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, voodoo priests in heaven because they are children and do not inherit sin from any one including their fathers or mothers.
You said;
Until Christ sets us free – our wills are enslaved to sin.
Jesus Al Masih said, “Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin, is the slave of sin.” John 8:34
That is why you need Jesus – you need to be set free; your will needs to be set free.
You also said;
those are all prophets before Jesus; they are all in the Old Testament – the Torah, Psalms and Poetic and Wisdon writings, and Prophets. (TaNaK – Torah, Nabi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (writings)) – they happened before Jesus came and they pointed to the Messiah.
I say;
If Christ could set the prophets before him and their people free, how on earth can he set the people after him free.
What set Moses and his people free is what will set me free and that is consistent and it is believe in One God, the prophets and the message of God and good deeds and not some ones death or blood which never saved Moses, Noah etc. and their people.
JazakAllah Khairan
Thanks
LikeLike
correction
I say;
If Christ could not set the prophets before him and their people free, how on earth can he set the people after him free.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Moses, Noah, Isaac, Jacob and all prophets of God never taught their followers that their salvation is pointed towards Jesus Christ dying for their sins, instead what we see is believe God is One, Only and Alone just like Islam.
There is no single Jesus Christ died for your sins in the old scripture, neither is there God becomes man or God is three or God is Trinity and that Trinity untruths.
Thanks.
LikeLike
“24By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.”- heb 11
how could Moses consider the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, if Moses did not know salvation was pointed toward Christ?
LikeLike
Mr. Paulus
Moses did not tell his followers; Folks, listen to me Salvation is pointed towards Christ. No where in the Old Testament does it say salvation is pointed towards Jesus Christ. Instead we see and read so many verses in the old testament that says clearly God is One, Only and Alone and it is repeatedly and that we should do good and that is good deeds.
Mr. Paulus that is Islam, believe God is One and Only, believe the prophets, Gods message, God law and do good deeds and you are saved. Not the blood of Jesus or God becoming man or dying at all. You can not find any single sentence that says Jesus died for the sins of man in the old testament.
Ken Temple says
Jesus dying for our sins does not mean we will never sin again. It means the legal guilt that separates us from a relationship with God is taken away, and the promise of forgiveness and eternal life is ours, by faith in Christ. (No hell fire for the true believer when they die, and true peace with God now at the time of faith. See John 5:24; Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1
Mr. Paulus what Ken said and I quoted above is absolutely false and fallacious.
Why?
Moses, Jacob, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Joseph and all prophets of God and their followers were not separated from God and had absolute relationship with God and will certainly go to heaven without Jesus dying for them. Jesus was not born at that time, how on earth can he die for their heaven when he is not there and no where in the old testament does it say your forgiveness is frozen and heaven is forbidden until Jesus Christi died for your sins.
Salvation was not frozen during Noahs time, Solomons etc. times, but these noble prophets of God preach to their followers to worship Only One and Alone God which is all over the Bible and away from Satan and evil and do GOOD DEEDS and follow God law, His message and the day of judgement and that is the same as what Islam believes.
Pointing at some messiah to come does not mean the messiah is God and it did not specifically says salvation is frozen for the people of Moses till this messiah dies for their sins. People of Moses get their forgiveness when they pray for forgiveness at the time of Moses and will not wait for any messiah to come and die before they are forgiven. There is no any carry forward here.
Yes, all prophets are aware of other prophets to come, so if even a messiah is to come which Muslims believe, does not merit this messiah is God is or will die before the sins of Moses, Noah, Abraham etc. people who needs their forgiveness then are forgiven. It is just completely not good to preach that Moses people had to wait for Jesus to die before their sins are forgiven or they do not have relationship with God with their prophet Jacob etc. and are separated from God with their prophet Joshua until Jesus dies. It is an insult to these noble prophet and their people who follow them, to say to them that, they are separated from God and do not have relationship with God and will not Go to heaven. The people of Moses will curse anyone who says they are separated from God and do not have relationship with God and will not Go to heaven.
You quoted the book of Hebrews Mr. Paulus, and how do you quote of a book which no one knows who wrote it. Dr. James White, a top scholar of Ken Temple says he does not know who wrote the book of Hebrews. We need a quote from the old testament, that the prophets at that time will testify clearly that salvation depends on Jesus Christi dying on the cross, and not a suffering servant which is not a clear salvation because it did not say Jesus Christ it says a suffering servant but a clear salvation is all over old testament that God is One, Only and Alone and only He alone must be worshiped and His law, message and good deeds must be obeyed.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Intellect wrote:
“No were did the above [ Old Testament prophets and Scriptures, Torah, Psalms, Prophets] said Jesus died for the sins of mankind.”
It doesn’t have to say it in those specific words, because those were previous history to Jesus Al Masih, and because they all prophesied of the Messiah and His sacrifice for sin to come in the future. The sacrifices – Abraham willing to sacrifice his son and God providing a lamb in his place (Genesis 22), the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12-14; sacrifices in Leviticus (Lev. 1-7), the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16-17); the temple sacrifices (1 Kings 8), Psalm 51:7 – “purify me with hyssop” – hyssop was the branch that brushed and sprinkled blood of the sheep and lambs and goats on the altar in the holy of holies inside the temple; Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come and be the substitutionary sacrifice), the prophesy of Daniel 9:24-27.
The whole Old Testament pointed to the Messiah to come in the future.
Isaiah 53:4-12 [written about 750 years before Messiah came, prophesy about Al Messiah]
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
Daniel 9:24-27 (written about 530 years before Al Masih came to earth)
Messiah to come – verse 24 describes what He will do – atone for sin, verse 25 speaks of His appearing, verse 26, His death (around 30 AD) , and after His death, the temple will be destroyed (70 AD). The prophesy was fulfilled.
24 “Seventy periods of seven years [70 x 7 = 490 years] are decreed for your people and your holy city
to finish transgression,
to put an end to sin,
to atone for wickedness,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy and
to anoint the Most Holy Place.
25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah, the ruler, comes, there will be seven periods of seven years, and sixty-two periods of seven years. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Messiah will be put to death and will have nothing.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
[destruction of the temple in 70 AD happens 40 years after the Messiah is put to death for sin]
The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one period of seven years. In the middle of that seven year period, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
LikeLike
Ken you made an error: Isaiah 53 does not mention a messiah anywhere
LikeLike
Furthermore you might like to know that there has long been a consensus amongst Old Testament scholars that the prophet Daniel did not write the book attributed to him. It is a 2nd century BC forgery.
LikeLike
Also I like how you have sexed up the Daniel quote making it say “the Messiah” when it only talks of ‘an anointed prince’ in verse 25 and ‘an anointed one’ in verse 26. The OT has many anointed people, kings, prophets and the like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
It doesn’t have to say it in those specific words, because those were previous history to Jesus Al Masih, and because they all prophesied of the Messiah and His sacrifice for sin to come in the future.
I say;
It has to say Jesus will turn himself from God to man and die for your sins. Don’t you see how clear salvation was spelt out all over the Bible and the God is One and Only and worship God alone, obey the law, believe in the day of judgement God messengers and do good.
It is only a wicked and barbaric God who will not make salvation clear and start to talk about messiah and some people will completely replace it as God dying for our sins and meanwhile it did not say that. Salvation involves fire so it must be clear like Yahweh is One and Only and Alone and worship Yahweh alone and do good and away from evil and satan and follow God law and his messengers and the last day so that human being will grasp the salvation and make God a fair God.
Not The messiah will be put to death, and so what. It means nothing because he was not the only prophet to be killed, so it say nothing of salvation. We need clear salvation message like GOD BECOMES MAN AND NAME HIMSELF JESUS AND DIED FOR THE SINS OF ALL MANKIND to be clear because it involves burning fire. All that you quoted has nothing to do with God dying for mans sins and Noah and Isaac did not teach those who follow them as it means God will become man and die for their sins.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Messiah משׁיח
מָשִׁיחַ
means “anointed one”, so Daniel 9:24-27 is about the Messiah to come.
the Messiah or anointed one is mentioned in verses 25 and 26.
Verse 24 describes six aspects of Messiah’s work – to atone for sin, etc.
The fact that the temple is destroyed after the Messiah is killed proves that this passage is talking about the Messiah. Jesus Himself says Daniel 9:26-27 is about the destruction of the temple that would happen 40 years from that time. (Matthew 24:15)
Isaiah does not have to have the word “Mesiah”, in order for it to be about the Messiah. Isaiah says He is the “Suffering Servant”.
Jesus is referring to Himself and by saying in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 – “The Son of Man came to serve and give His life a ransom for many” – Jesus is saying He is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.
It does not matter what liberals say about Daniel. I accept the prophet Daniel wrote it around 530 BC.
You should also, since you believe Allah has the power to prophesy and tell the future.
LikeLike
“Isaiah does not have to have the word “Mesiah”, in order for it to be about the Messiah. Isaiah says He is the “Suffering Servant”.”
“Messiah” does NOT mean “Suffering Servant”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1 please stop embarrassing Ken!
LikeLike
I am not embarrassed at all. I did not write that the word “Messiah” means “suffering servant”. But they are the same person. The Messiah, the Christ, is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 prove this.
Mark 14:60-64
The Pharisees and high priest questioned Jesus:
“Tell us, are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?”
The Jewish leaders understood Psalm 2, Psalm 110, Daniel 7:13-14, and Daniel 9:24-27 to be about the Messiah.
Jesus quotes from Daniel 7 and Psalm 110, and the Jewish leaders tear their robes and yell, “blasphemy!”, because they know Jesus is claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God, of these passages.
And Jesus called Himself “servant, who would be a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), which shows Jesus understood Himself to be the fufillment of Isaiah 52 and 53.
LikeLike
quoting the NT proves nothing Ken. We are seeking to understand the passages in their original context, the original meaning. Not the much later Christian view. No Jewish leader before the advent of Christianity ever thought these passages referred to Yahweh becoming a man and then dying to atone for the world’s sins.
Psalm 2, Psalm 110 are about David. The Daniel passages (though not by Daniel as scholars now realise) do not mention Jesus or God become a creature and dying for the sins of the world.
I have posted an article by an Oxford professor of the NT explaining why we cannot take the gospels at face value as you do. They are a mixture of historically accurate material, fiction, made up stories and legends (like Matthew 27: 51-53).
LikeLike
“sexed up” is a weird modern idiom for making something more attractive, cool, neat, more understandable, clearer, whatever.
that is a weird modern western idiom that will probably confuse other non-English speakers.
different translations in English translate the Hebrew word “messiah”
מָשִׁיחַ either “Messiah” or “anointed one”.
that is what Xristos χριστος (Christ) means, “anointed one”, “Messiah”
LikeLike
thanks for the invaluable language lesson Ken.
If you don’t mind i’ll stick with contemporary English.
You keep saying ‘The Messiah’ this and ‘The Messiah’ that, but you failed to quote a single passage in the OT that speaks of ‘The Messiah’.
LikeLike
Daniel 9:24-27 uses the Hebrew word Messiah twice (I already proved that), and Psalm 2 is about the Messiah, also called “The Son” and “King”. This is a prophesy about Jesus the Messiah, Son of God and Son of David. (Quoted many times by the NT apostles and writers of the NT.)
So you are refuted.
LikeLike
Ken you have a one dimensional Christian apologetic that does not do justice to the Bible.
You assume wrongly that the Bible just speaks of one ‘Messiah’ (capital M). Messiah just means ‘anointed one’ (not as you persist in claiming “The Messiah” – none of your passages say that – not one) and there are literally hundreds of anointed people in the Bible – all the kings of Israel, prophets and others, even pagan worshipers were called messiah! Yes a pagan anointed one!
There is no warrant in the OT to conclude that ‘the messiah’ is your Jesus: God in flesh dying for sins. That is an alien belief not found in the Bible or Quran.
Psalm 2 as every schoolboy knows is about David.
LikeLike
The inspired New Testament writers tell us several times that Psalm 2 was about the Messiah Jesus, the Son of David. the Jews also agree that it is Messianic Psalm.
Jesus said Daniel was Himself, the Messiah, and the destruction of the temple, after He is killed. (Matthew 24:15)
So you are refuted again.
LikeLike
The NT is not inspired, and it does not claim to be either. The messiah figure in the psalm is David. As I explained to you already the Bible is full of messiahs, some Jewish some gentile.
LikeLike
Paul B. Williams wrote:
“. . . your Jesus: God in flesh dying for sins. That is an alien belief not found in the Bible or Quran.”
Matthew 1:23 – “His name will be called “Immanuel”, which means “God with us”.
That is why He was born from the virgin Mary.
Hebrews 2:14-18 –
14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but He helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
John 1:14
“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . ”
The Qur’an calls Jesus, the “Word of God” کلمه الله several times.
So, you are refuted; again.
LikeLike
‘your Jesus: God in flesh dying for sins. That is an alien belief not found in the Bible or Quran.”
I was referring of course to the Jewish Bible and the Quran. I thought that was obvious.
LikeLike
Since the Qur’an affirms the NT (The true Injeel) – Surah 2:136; 5:44-47; 5:66-68; 10:94; and it came 600 years before the Qur’an and since it is inspired by God, and written by apostles and prophets and friends of the apostles, your point is refuted.
LikeLike
you misread the Quran – it denies Jesus was crucified so it could hardly agree with the NT. The New Testament was written by men who had no idea they were writing what people much later considered to be scripture. Nowhere do they claim to be penning holy writ.
LikeLike
‘It does not matter what liberals say about Daniel. I accept the prophet Daniel wrote it around 530 BC.’
lol typical fundamentalist polemic. You do not realise that conservative and liberal scholars agree that Daniel did not write this – the evidence indicates it came from a much later time. Check any standard critical commentary for the facts Ken. Would you like a list of top evangelical OT scholars who agree it is a 2nd century BC document?
LikeLike
I already know about some of them, except that the labels “conservative” and “evangelical” – there are degrees of those positions on a spectrum, some more or less than others.
These are just 5 believing scholars hold to the view of the 6th Century BC ( 530 BC) – there are more, of course.
1. E. J. Young ( 1949) is a good commentary on Daniel that holds to 6th Century BC. (530 BC)
as does
2. Tremper Longman III (page 23, The NIV Application Commentary on Daniel, Zondervan)
3. Ian M. Duguid
4. Sinclair Ferguson
5. Gleason Archer, (page 387, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction)
The issue is between the world view and presuppositions that cause people to doubt the miraculous in Daniel. The details of the prophesies of the book, especially chapter 11 are said to be so exact, that the anti-suppernaturalist cannot believe it is prophesy / foretelling the future.
Since you believe that Allah has the power to tell the future, you should stop using the arguments of people who don’t believe in miracles or prophesy.
LikeLike
Ken you demonstrate yet again your ignorance of scholarship when you characterise the reason virtually all OT experts do accept Daniel as the author as having to do with ‘anti-suppernaturalism’.
Do you consider FF Bruce guilty of ‘anti-suppernaturalism’?
LikeLike
F. F. Bruce is a New Testament scholar. Did he write something on Daniel?
LikeLike
boy you are lacking in knowledge! He had the extremely unusual distinction of having served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study.
He also knew that Isaiah was a composite work – and the bit you like to quote from 53 was not by the prophet Isaiah – but some later unknown scribe.
LikeLike
Ok, I see that it does say that “President of the Society for O. T. Study” and he did write a few books on OT issues. A very interesting scholarly article on the Hittites, whom the liberals scoffed at the Bible for a long time and said they didn’t exist, . . . ooops . . . until archeological discoveries proved the Hittite civilization. There is a massive museum in Ankara, Turkey of the Hittite civilizationa and artifacts. Amazing. The Bible proven true always.
But most of F. F. Bruce’s work was in the NT, and he wrote the great book, “The NT documents, are they reliable?” and he affirms that they are – against you and your arguments.
Boom. you are refuted again.
All Muslims should read this book for historical reliability of the NT.
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testament-Documents-Reliable/dp/0802822193/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
LikeLike
When i was an evangelical Christian i read this book many times. But you have changed the subject Ken (did you think I wouldn’t notice?).
Bruce was a top OT scholar who taught his students that Isaiah was a composite work – and the bit you like to quote from 53 was not by the prophet Isaiah – but some later unknown scribe.
Response?
LikeLike
So, you are saying F. F. Bruce held to the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory? (that there were 2 different authors of the book of Isaiah – one of Isaiah chapters 1-39 and another of Isaiah 40-66.) Some even more liberal scholars hold to “Three-Isaiah” (three different authors).
I did not know F. F. Bruce held that view. Documentation?
Most of his works are on the NT and books on the canon and parchments, etc.
His famous book, “The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable?” shows that no textual variant by scribal error affects any doctrine. So Muslim polemics against the NT are defeated.
LikeLike
yes he certainly taught that theory. He said so. Was Bruce a liberal then? I have read the text of correspondence he wrote on this very question to James Barr in his book Escaping Fundamentalism. Bruce was not a fundamentalist like you.
As to the claim ‘that no textual variant by scribal error affects any doctrine’ that is a lie. You subscribe to the absolutely central evangelical christian claim of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. The belief is falsified.
Tell me what is the ending of Mark’s gospel? What does it say?
LikeLike
No, Bruce says no historical fact of Christian faith (doctrine) or practice is affected by the textual variants, in his book, The NT documents, are they reliable?” – page 19-20.
“The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith [ie, doctrine] and practice.”
LikeLike
obviously he can say this is because he rejects some of your key doctrines such as inerrancy.
Tell me what is the ending of Mark’s gospel? What does it say?
LikeLike
Read, Digest, and learn the 5 books on Daniel and OT that I put forth. or are you afraid to branch out from your fundamentalist Islamic box, one-dimension?
LikeLike
I am glad to know that F. F. Bruce is also considered an O.T. scholar. His work on the Hittites is impressive. I have been to the museum in Ankara, Turkey (in 1987) and some of the underground cities nearby and it is amazing!! Archeology proves the Bible is true.
LikeLike
Actually, much archaeology disproves parts of the OT narrative.
One of the world’s leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever has written that:
“Archaeology certainly doesn’t prove literal readings of the Bible…It calls them into question, and that’s what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so.”[27] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archaeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archaeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the “archaeological revolution.” Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that’s very disturbing to some people.[28]
Dever also wrote:
Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the ‘larger than life’ portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence….[29] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information…[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology#Expert_commentaries
LikeLike
“I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist.”
William G. Dever
Interesting, you are using an atheist / unbeliever’s worldview in judging Holy Scripture. The Qur’an affirms all of the miraculous in the OT prophets, etc.
You are inconsistent. Your arguments keep failing, because you use the world view of people who don’t believe that God can reveal and inspire books and prophesy, fore-tell the future, and do miracles.
LikeLike
Mark 16:1-8 confirms the empty tomb and Jesus’ resurrection.
Verses 9-20 are not in the earliest manuscripts, but the resurrection appearances are in Matthew, Luke, and John, and Acts; and all of Paul’s letters, which were written even earlier – like 1 Corinthians 15 – written around 55 AD. Romans 57 AD
Galatians 49-50
1 Thess. – 51 AD
2 Thess. – 52 – AD
So, the lack of verses 9-20 does not damage any doctrine, since the main issues are all repeated many times over in other parts of the NT.
LikeLike
but verses 9-20 are in the King James Version and many other versions. Are they wrong?
Next question: the story of the woman caught in adultery. Is this in your inerrant Bible?
LikeLike
Those and other textual variants are dealt with in James White’s excellent book, The King James Only Controversy.
Even so, F. F. Bruce’s point still stands. No doctrine or historical fact or Christian practice is affected by the textual variants.
http://www.amazon.com/The-King-James-Only-Controversy/dp/0764206052
LikeLike
I have already replied that Bruce’s understanding of ‘No doctrine or historical fact or Christian practice is affected by the textual variants.’ and what you mean by ‘No doctrine or historical fact or Christian practice is affected by the textual variants’ is different.
Let me demonstrate my point. Question: the story of the woman caught in adultery. Is this in your inerrant Bible?
LikeLike
5. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed.
6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. [ all of Islam is defeated right here!]
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Mark 16:5-8
Islam defeated.
LikeLike
lol you have not quite grasped my point have you?
LikeLike
lol, you are not a sharp chap today, eh? Maybe you need a strong cup of tea to wake your brain up.
LikeLike
i dont Ken, but your response suggests to me you have not yet understood my objection.
LikeLike
question: the story of the woman caught in adultery. Is this in your inerrant Bible?
LikeLike
John 7:53-8:11 is clearly marked off as not in the earliest manuscripts, as is Mark 16:9-20.
We have dealt with that issue many times. My own pastor, when he got to John 7:53-8:11 as he was going through the gospel of John, said, the title of today is “A Text I cannot preach on”. He did a good job of explaining textual criticism and the textual variants issues.
I remember one guy being very upset; it shook him up. Not me; we studied the issue in seminary.
It is possible that what Papias mentions in his fragments (70-135 AD) is about that same adulterous woman story, but that tradition is in different places in the canon, when it appears – sometimes in the Gospel according to Luke in some manuscripts.
LikeLike
So you are saying that the famous story in John’s gospel of the woman caught in adultery is not in the Bible?!
But it is in every Bible I have ever read. All modern translations include this passage!
Now you say sometimes it appears in Luke’s gospel too!
How is there so much confusion amongst Christians about what makes up their perfect Bible? And there are many other examples of differences between manuscripts. Some very significant.
Clearly the central doctrine of biblical inerrancy is shattered when christians cannot agree which passages are in the Bible and which are not.
LikeLike
The doctrine of inerrancy is NOT shattered, because the doctrine says that the Scriptures are inerrant in the original autographa, not copies or modern translations; though they accurately have everything we need. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is clear.
LikeLike
but no one has the original writings. Did the original John’s gospel contain the prologue of chapter 1? Many scholars think not. Who is to say? What use is a doctrine that cannot be proved or disproved? No one has any evidence. Perhaps 1 Corinthians is a composite work made up of several different letters as many scholars think. Is that composite text your inerrant Bible? or is it the original letters before they were rearranged into another letter?
LikeLike
All the extant full manuscripts of the gospel of John have chapter 1:1-18, so what some radical liberal theorizes is irrelevant.
We started with the Qur’an Surah 9:29 (and I argue that verse 28 and verse 30 are important in understanding it.)
Also –
Surah 8:39
And fight them until there is no more fitnah [ rebellion and confusion and tormoil] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.
All of Surah 9 and 8:39 and many Hadith and the history of Islam’s aggressive warfare and attacking everything in sight, Dhimmitude of Christians and Jews, wars against Hindus in India, etc. are enough to demonstrate that Islam is an inferior and discredited violent religion.
LikeLike
Ken you claimed ‘the Scriptures are inerrant in the original autographa’ –
but we have no full manuscripts of John from before the four century.
So the inerrancy claim is worthless. It cannot be proved. There is no evidence for it.
Remember: no one has the original writings.
Consider: Perhaps 1 Corinthians is a composite work made up of several different letters as many scholars think. Is that composite text your inerrant Bible? or is it the original letters before they were rearranged into another letter?
thoughts?
LikeLike
Excerpts from a paper written by a past A student of Shabir Aly…
“E.W. Lane notes in his Arabic-English Lexicon that the jizya is paid “as though it were a compensation for their not being slain.” Various other Muslim commentators describe the Jizya as “a pardon for death” and “satisfaction for their blood.” The 8th century Hanafi jurist Abu Yusuf Ya’qub states regarding the jizya:
The wali is not allowed to exempt any Christian, Jew, Magian, Sabean or Samaritan from paying the tax, and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, because their lives and possessions are spared only on account of the payment of the poll tax…
One notable practice that developed among Hanafi and Shafi’i schools of jurisprudence was the practice of striking the dhimmi as they pay the jizya, usually at the back of the neck (although sometimes the jaw under the ear is hit instead). This is attested to in the writings of Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), Al-Razi (d. 1210) and Nasafi (d. 1310). To this, Al-Tabari (d. 923) adds that the posture of the dhimmi as he hands over the jizya is that they lower themselves “by walking on their hands, reluctantly.” Al-Suyuti (d. 1505) describes how the dhimmi is to have dirt on his head as he gives the jizya, and how the Muslim receiving the Jizya is always to have a whip on hand. The intent is to remind dhimmis of their subjugated state (as indicated below under the discussion of the phrase “made little”).”
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of the prologue of John – John 1:1-18 is in P-66 ; and most of the rest of the Gospel of John is in P-66 – the Bodmer Papyri, dated around 200 AD.
P66 – Papyrus Bodmer II (around 200 C.E.)
contains most of John’s Gospel: 1:1—6:11; 6:35—14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7, 16:10—20:20, 22-23, 20:25—21:9
P-52 is a fragment from John 18, dated around 120 AD.
LikeLike
So you have P66 a 3rd century document – that’s the earliest? How do you know that John wrote the prologue? Many scholars think it was added later. Fact: there is no 1st century manuscript in existence of any part of the NT. Only much later copies. We have no certainly that they are not changed in all sorts of ways. Inerrancy is dead as a dodo.
LikeLike
If John was written between 80-90 AD, then 200 AD (with possible range of 180-220 AD) is not that much gap. For an ancient document, written during times of persecution and transmitted during times of persecution, and burning of documents by the Romans, quite remarkable. We have some of John 18 that is exactly the same as the other copies of 200s – 500s. (John Rylands, P-52 – around 120 AD).
Regarding John chapter 1, we also have other mention of the Gospel of John and Jesus as the logos (Word) in the writings of Justin Martyr, who wrote around 150 AD, and Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, chapter 8, no. 5 (ca. 180-200 AD) and Tertullian (ca. 180-220 AD) and Tatian ( the gospel of John was part of his Diatesseron ( Harmony of the Four Gospels – ca. 160-175 AD) In order for them to have written about Jesus as the logos/Word, then the prologue of John (John 1:1-18) certainly existed before those times; before Justin in 150 AD.
Also Ignatius (107-117 AD) calls Jesus “Our God”, born of the Virgin, etc. several times in his letters. These are some of the earliest extra-Biblical confirmations of the Deity of Christ.
LikeLike
if John’s gospel was written ‘during times of persecution and transmitted during times of persecution, and burning of documents by the Romans’ – then that is a terribly perilous time for the stable transmission of written manuscripts. So much can happen in a century to change/alter/corrupt texts in such circumstances. Obviously one can have no confidence the original was not altered in some ways.
However it is very doubtful that apostle John wrote the gospel. See discussion here:
https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/02/14/773/
LikeLike
Polycarp quotes from the letter of 1 John twice – Polycarp to the Philippians 7 – he quotes 1 John 4:2-3 and 3:8. So Ehrman’s question as to why doesn’t Polycarp mention the gospel of John is not a very good argument. All we have from Polycarp’s pen that has survived is that one letter of 13 paragraphs, and some of it is in Latin (the ending Greek is missing.) Just because he doesn’t mention John the apostle or the gospel according to John in his letter to the Philippians, does not mean he doesn’t know John or his gospel.
It is like for example, if there was a Nuclear War (God forbid) and out of your writings, only some fragments survived that mention Richard Bauckham and F. F. Bruce, but nothing you wrote about James Dunn survived, but at the same time, my statements about your writing about James Dunn did survive.
According to historical records, Papias wrote a lot – a five volume work, “Expositions of the Sayings of Our Lord”, but only fragments survive. One of those fragments that survives is the story of a woman taken in adultery and presented to Jesus, very much like John 7:53-8:11. That is very good evidence that that story was historical and from Jesus, and Papias recorded it, from the eyewitness of John.
Also, John being a fisherman, etc. does not mean he cannot write and think and get someone else to write it down for him. Peter clearly used an amanuensis (like a secretary, with authority to correct grammar and style) – 1 Peter 5:12 (I am writing to you through Silvanus”), as did Paul (Romans 16:22).
So, Erhman’s points are not that great, when one examines everything more closely.
LikeLike
on the abject unreliability of Papias as a witness see:
Papias as an Earwitness?
and
Believing Papias When It’s Convenient
LikeLike
“One of those fragments that survives is the story of a woman taken in adultery and presented to Jesus,..”
Not so. The quote attributed to Papias speaks about a woman accused of many crimes, NOT adultery explicitly
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting point. Just goes to show…
LikeLike
‘Also Ignatius (107-117 AD) calls Jesus “Our God”, born of the Virgin, etc. several times in his letters. These are some of the earliest extra-Biblical confirmations of the Deity of Christ.’
Indeed. I agree. See discussion here:
https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/02/14/if-jesus-was-god-then-in-what-sense-was-he-god/
LikeLike
Ehrman’s statement about the Daimonia (Demons) sounds like the Jinn in Islam. Definitely nothing like the great statements of Ignatius that Jesus is God; and other 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Century confirmations of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
“On the next lower rung on the pyramid, was an even less powerful group (and more numerous) set of divine beings sometimes called DAIMONIA. It’s not helpful or accurate to translate this term as “demons” – even though that is the precise equivalent – because these were not necessarily divine entities that always did harm and were out to hurt people.Sometimes they were, but sometimes they were good too. These are the divine beings closer to us, who have more to do with our daily affairs. They can be fickle, and some are nasty, but others were not. I prefer calling these daimonia, rather than demons, since demons in the Christian tradition are always malevolent.”
Sounds more like the Jinn of the Qur’an and Islam.
LikeLike
As I’m sure you know Christianity was very diverse in the early centuries. Some Christians considered Jesus to be God others did not. Ignatius of course was a catholic who had different views from yourself on key issues such as the nature and structure of the church and the eucharist. In fact he is Roman Catholic saint!
LikeLike
The Roman Catholic Church reads a lot of traditions and doctrines developed centuries later back into Ignatius. he is the first who propounds a kind of mono-episcopacy, true. (one overseer/bishop over the college of elders in authority). But that is not there in the NT – elders and overseers are the same office, two different functions. (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-4; Titus 1:5-7)
The statement on the eucharist, in it’s historical context, is speaking against Gnosticism, who didn’t beleive Jesus had a body, therefore did not eat the Lord’s Supper, because they didn’t beleive Jesus had a real body or real blood. It does not mean transubstantiation, but it does show the honor that we give to the symbol of Christ’s blood and body.
So, there is really nothing there that is inconsistent with Protestantism. (Anglicans and Methodists and Pentecostals have an episcopal – bishop system of church government.)
LikeLike
‘there is really nothing there that is inconsistent with Protestantism’
yep you are right Ken, nothing you disagree with here, merely a symbol just as you say:
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
I guess you side with the gnostics Ken against the catholic christians who gave you the New Testament…
LikeLike
No; because I partake in the Eucharist – the symbols of the true death of Jesus Christ in history. Ignatius was saying the Docetists/proto-Gnostics abstain from it because they don’t even believe Jesus had a body while on earth. You are wrong.
LikeLike
Ignatius was a catholic Ken – he would have rejected you as a non-believer and heretic.
you think Ignatius means a symbol when he says: ‘the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ’
I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus said “I am the door” (John 10:9-11) and “I am the true vine” (john 15:1) – obvious metaphors.
the main point that Ignatius is making is that they reject the Eucharist because they (Docetists/ pro to-Gnostics) reject Jesus was real with a real human nature and human body.
When Jesus held up the bread and cup of wine at the Lord’s supper, He said, “this is My body” (but He is there in His incarnational body, so it is obvious He means, “This bread represents My body” and “This the cup of the New Covenant in My blood” – means “it represents My blood, because His blood is still flowing in His veins when He makes that statement.
LikeLike
that is not how the early catholic christians such as Ignatius and Justin Martyr and Irenaeus understood the matter Ken.
they literally believed (what you reject):
‘the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ’
LikeLike
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2008/02/29/the-abuse-of-ignatius-of-antioch-by-roman-catholic-apologist-steve-ray-final/
LikeLike
Ken, you and your American co-religionists are defeated by the irrefutable statement that identifies the bread and wine with the body and blood of Jesus:
‘the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ’
QED
LikeLike
“represents” – obvious metaphors. Don’t you have the intellectual capacity to see that, since Jesus said “I am the door” and “I am the true vine” ??
LikeLike
…and don’t you have the intellectual capacity to see that your door and vine quotes are metaphors but the eucharistic words are meant literally, physically – according to the christian leaders of the early catholic church: Ignatius and Justin Martyr and Irenaeus et al.
Its not rocket science Ken.
‘the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ’
LikeLike
Since you recognize that the door and vine quotes are metaphors;
do you agree that Jesus was using metaphoric language when He said, “This is My body” and “this is My blood” ; in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and Luke 22 ??
LikeLike
Remember He is there in His incarnational literal body when He said those words.
LikeLike
Ken, if the disciples only realized Jesus was “divine” after the resurrection: How could they possibly understand what he was talking about. As orthodox jews
LikeLike
Historically, I agree with the vast majority of NT historians who argue (persuasively) that Jesus never said the words “I am the door” and “I am the true vine” – these are creations of the unknown author of the Fourth Gospel.
Ken can you name just one early Church Father from the first or second centuries who describes the eucharistic words as merely symbol or metaphor?
LikeLike
Do you have the intellectual capacity to see that when he said “Before Abraham was I am” it’s an obvious metaphor?
LikeLiked by 1 person
even so, I agree with the vast majority of NT historians who argue (persuasively) that Jesus never said the words “I am the door” and “I am the true vine” – these are creations of the unknown author of the Fourth Gospel.
Why unknown? see this: Why was the Gospel of John attributed to John?
LikeLike
Then why did the Jews pick up stones to kill Him for blasphemy? John 8:59
See also John 5:18
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
and
John 10:31
and
John 19:6-7
Wake your selves up to have the intellectual honesty to read and seek to understand the context of verses.
LikeLike
Are you saying “THE Jews” (who the hell was that?) understood your Jesus? Why is he complaining all the time they do NOT understand him?
Wake your selves up to have the intellectual honesty to read and seek to understand the context of verses.
LikeLike
The Jewish leaders, Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes, lawyers, priests, high priest – who did not believe is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God. It is all through all four gospels.
It does not mean all Jews, as Peter, John, James, Andrew, etc were all Jews; as was the apostle Paul later in the book of Acts.
But they (the Jewish leaders) did believe that the OT Scriptures taught that the Messiah would be the Son of God – see Mark 14:60-64 – they just did not believe that Jesus was Him.
Jesus quoted two passages to back up His claim that He was the Messiah, the Son of God and they tore their robes and accused Him of blasphemy.
LikeLike
Messiah does NOT mean “the eternal Son of God.”
If “they” believed the Messiah would “Son of God”, they would not accuse him blasphemy. They would accuse him of being a false Messiah.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Then why did the Jews pick up stones to kill Him for blasphemy? John 8:59
See also John 5:18
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
I say;
Why on earth should we search through the Bible for an enemy of a Person/person to tell us who he is? It is a pity, because what they say and we want to believe is salvation and involves burning fire of all mankind who do not believe that. To believe the Jews? the enemies of Jesus? because it fall on what we want to believe? Ridiculous. They(The Jews) say so many things against Jesus which is not true. They call him a bastard. Mr. Ken do you believe them(The Jews) when they call Jesus a bastard?
Jesus never said he is God or he is bastard. Find us a compelling evidence that Jesus himself says he is God because it is VERY, VERRY, VERY, VERY important like how God keep saying He is ONE AND ONLY AND ALONE to stress salvation to mankind.
Going to the Jews, the enemy of Jesus to tell us that Jesus is God, because we cannot find anything in the Bible that says Jesus is God is completely a disaster for Christianity.
Jesus taught us to say “Our Father who art in heaven” and we say that, does that mean we are equal to God? If no, then you do not have to listen to the Jews, because if Jesus says God is his Father, it does not mean Jesus is equal to God.
The Bible clearly says God is One, Only and Alone and I do not get where you are getting your contradiction for God is with a biological Son, which He gave birth to with Mary later in life, but also eternal.
God relationship with us, human beings is not like giving birth, with your wife and have a child and loving that child, that is a human kind of relationship and it is a blaspheme to think of God having an affair with a woman and giving birth to a Son and having a loving relationship with the Son.
God is self-sufficient and yes He loves all his creations because He nourishes us and provides air for us to breath free of charge, whether we are Muslims, Christian, Hindus, Idol worshipers etc. God provides our needs for us. God loves us and relate to us in His divine ways and not human ways like Son, child, wife and Father.
|Because God created us with freewill, choice and intellect, so that we can choose between good or bad(evil), then He has to send us His message, messengers, law, etc. to guide us into His right path and for the love of God we have all these(prophets, laws, intellect, etc.) to guide us to His path and away from Satan and evil.
No ones blood can guide us from evil because Moses had a Ten commandment and that is what his followers need to obey and be saved. There is nothing in the Moses then commandment that is said it is pointing to God to come and die for any ones sins.
Those followers of Moses who accepts the ten commandment, will be saved and go to heaven without Jesus because Jesus was not there and was not born or was he dead at that time.
Abraham and his sons have relationship which God without the Holy Spirit, so it is not the Holy Spirit, that relate us to God but obedient to God like Abraham and his followers did.
God has so many Sons/sons in the Bible because Greek has no capital letters and to make Jesus Son, among the Sons/sons speak of tampering of the Bible. The Son can either be literal of metaphorical and we are all metaphorical Sons/sons to God and not Jesus alone and God is not a literal Father to anyone including Jesus.
In the OT, God says He is One, Only and Alone and God did not speak of any Son/son he lives with for eternity to learn how to relate to human beings by learning how Father and Son relationship is. Why not Mother and Son/son relationship? Mother’s relate to their Sons/son more than Father. Why not Daughter relationship? so that God will also know how to relate to a daughter.
Thanks
LikeLike
Obviously, I am not aggreeing with the Jews who rejected Christ, for they did not believe He was born of the virgin Mary. But they understood what He meant when He said “Before Abraham was born, I am.” and the other texts above, like John 5:18 and Mark 14:60-64. They understood Jesus’ claims. You cannot ignore that.
LikeLike
I agree with the vast majority of NT historians who argue (persuasively) that Jesus not only never said the words “I am the door” and “I am the true vine” etc but the gospel as a whole is shaped and coloured by the unknown author of the Fourth Gospel. Only a fool would take John at face value.
LikeLike
and here are some more catholic christian views to refute your own:
St. Justin Martyr, ca A.D. 150
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [being born again in Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (First Apology 66)
St. Irenaeus, ca A.D. 140-202
He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying This is My body.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the body be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood nor is the bread which we break the partaking of His body… He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established us as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord…receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
LikeLike
They were wrong on that; getting over enthusiastic and interpreting the Last supper wrong. Since Jesus was standing/ reclining in His incarnational body at the time He said “This is My body” and “this is the cup of the New Covenant in My blood”; it is OBVIOUS that He meant, “this bread repensents My body”, etc.
LikeLike
…obvious to a 21st century American evangelical
LikeLike
As a Muslim, I know you don’t think Jesus is God in the flesh, but I am asking from a Christian perspective, you seem to agree that even the NT (texts below) is teaching transubstantiation –
So, you think the intention of the text is that Jesus was teaching there are at least two incarnations (two manifestations of His incarnational body and blood) at the last supper? (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22)
Do you think He was standing there in space and time and reality in His body (The word became flesh – John 1:14) and also said “I am transubstantiating / changing this bread and wine into my body and blood, thus making two bodies, and two sources of His blood ?
LikeLike
who mentioned transubstantiation? I detect a hobby horse of yours Ken. This is a much much later term.
I have been correcting your shameless trick of pretending that Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were all Protestants like you in their understanding of the Eucharist. You have conceded the point however – (credit where credit is due).
LikeLike
The western half of the church was “catholic” (little c = “universal” from kata holikos = κατα ‘ολικος = according to the whole, no problem. The east went by “orthodox”.
But the early church was NOT Roman Catholic. As you know, that is why the Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutherans, Methodists, can quote the Nicean Creed, confessing “I believe in the apostolic catholic church” and be totally truthful and historical and consistent.
LikeLike
it is important to stress that ‘catholic’ means universal Ken and you views were decidedly outside the universal church as understood by the 2nd century orthodox. I find it illuminating that you deliberately underplayed this aspect of the word.
LikeLike
no; I wrote “universal”, “according to the whole” = kata holikos = κατα ‘ολικος
We emphasize that word “universal”, rather than the anachronistic way that the Roman Catholicism of centuries later reads itself back into history.
LikeLike
have the guts to finally admit that your views (on the Eurchaist) were not shared by the universal church as understood by the 2nd century orthodox
LikeLike
you said
‘The statement on the eucharist, in it’s historical context, is speaking against Gnosticism, who didn’t beleive Jesus had a body, therefore did not eat the Lord’s Supper, because they didn’t beleive Jesus had a real body or real blood. It does not mean transubstantiation, but it does show the honor that we give to the symbol of Christ’s blood and body. So, there is really nothing there that is inconsistent with Protestantism.’
Glad to see you can change your views upon correction…
LikeLike
Ken can you name just one early Church Father from the first or second centuries who describes the eucharistic words as merely symbol or metaphor?
yes, except I would not say “mere” symbols, because the symbols point back to a reality; and there is a spiritual communion at the eucharist with believers in Christ who have faith and repentance and have confessed their sins and prayed – they experience a spiritual presence of Jesus, and communion with the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)
Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii.)
For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)
For the Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body. (Augustine, Against Adimant.)
He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood. (Augustine, on Psalm 3.)
We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica.)”
LikeLike
Ken
I asked you to ‘name just one early Church Father from the first or second centuries’
In reply you gave me the following 5 names. Let us look at each one.
1) Tertullian: active in the 3rd century (c. 160 – c. 225 AD). Was he a true church father? He abandoned the Church and died a Montanist heretic. So he doesn’t really qualify Ken.
2) Macarius of Egypt (c. 300 – 391). 4th century writer – does not qualify remember: I asked you to ‘name just one early Church Father from the first or second centuries’
3) Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393 – c. 458/466 AD). 5th century writer – way too late!
4 Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430). I asked you to ‘name just one early Church Father from the first or second centuries’
5) Eusebius of Caesarea, (263 – 339 AD). 3rd to 4th century.
So to sum up you have failed miserably to cite even one early Church Father from the first or second centuries who describes the eucharistic words as merely symbol or metaphor.
LikeLike
Most of first Century is the NT documents and they do not teach any kind of transubstantiation.
There are only three or four First Century documents outside of NT, only 2 for sure are first century – The Didache, 1 Clement. (but some put Didache as between 70-150 AD.) I Clement is 96 AD by most scholars.
Shepherd of Hermas and Pseudo Barnabas maybe early 2nd century. I don’t think they even mention the eucharist.
The Didache mentions of the Eucharist are simple and compatible with symbolic and spiritual presence. there is nothing in the two passages (Didache 9:5 and 14) that suggest anything like what Justin Martry wrote.
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred'”.
Didache 9:5
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'” Didache 14
The teaching there is very similar to Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:21-26 – before you come and worship, make sure you make things right with others who have something against you – confess your sins and reconcile with others, then come back and worship and present your sacrifice (OT and pre-cross context).
LikeLike
Augustine ( I know he is 4th and 5th Century – 354-430 AD)
‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’
Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.
LikeLike
“In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me you will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes….He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, He proceeded to the Father by His ascension man, but He forsook not the world in the ruling activity of His presence.
The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world….”
(Augustine, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).
LikeLike
er… why are you suddenly citing a 5th century writer?
LikeLike
M. Williams, you wrote :
“you misread the Quran – it denies Jesus was crucified”
Far from it. Your opinion is only one interpretation of the verse amongst others equally defensible in the Muslim world.
In the Sahih International translation, the Qur’an mysteriously says : “And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself.” The word “Rather” suggests that there is an alternative between two conflicting options, but I fail to see why the Messiah could not be killed and then be subsequently raised to God. And what is “for certain” supposed to mean ? Does it indicate an obvious truth for all men, or a certainty that only God possesses ?
Equally mysteriously, in the Khalifa translation of the preceding verse we read “All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture.”
The apparent meaning of this is that it is futile to try to argue about, or discuss, the crucifixion event. If so, many dawah carriers are wasting their time with this, lol
LikeLike
Gary, shall we cite the Sahih International translation for the whole verse?
And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
LikeLike
Tertullian is late 2nd Century to early 3rd Century. conversion and writings from around 180-220 AD.
LikeLike
Was he a true church father? He abandoned the Church and died a Montanist heretic. So he doesn’t really qualify Ken. But I agree you can find your views aplenty in what the Catholic Christian orthodox rejected as heretics and apostates.
LikeLike
It is true that Tertullian is not considered a “church father” because toward the end of his life, he became a Montanist. But Roman Catholics use him for all his writings previous to becoming a Montantist and he is very important in early church history, known as “the father of Latin theology”. Although, according to most sources, Theophilus of Antioch around 180 first used the term Trinitas; Tertullian explicated the terms “trinitas Unitas” (three in one) and 3 persons (persona); and all Christians agree with that explaination of the Trinity.
Tertullian also questioned infant baptism and also did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He firmly held to the virgin conception of Christ, per Matthew 1 and Luke 1-2; but he clearly thought that Mary had other children after Jesus was born and Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage. He was right on those issues also.
LikeLike
he was right on some things but not on others. Not reliable – especially on the trinity.
‘and all Christians agree with that explaination of the Trinity.’ No so. Many very learned ordained Christian theologians do not accept the trinity (ie they believe in the Absolute unity of God). Would you like a list?
LikeLike
They are not Christians, by definition, if they reject the Trinity and Deity of Christ.
LikeLike
wrong. Go back to school Ken. There were many Christologies and even Christianities in the early years (1st – 3rd century). No agreement – great diversity of Christian belief about literally everything. There is now widespread agreement on this in academic circles. Want a reading list?
LikeLike
No; I already know enough about that stuff and the Bauer – Pagels – Ehrman thesis. I know that many groups of Gnostics – Docetists, Marcionites, Valentinians, Encratites, and other heresies such as Ebionites, Arians, Apollinarians, Monarchianites, Sabellianism, etc. – all heresies of Christianity, existed.
You need to go back to school and read:
The Heresy of Orthodoxy – by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger
The Canon Revisted – by Michael Kruger
The Canon Question – by Michael Kruger
LikeLike
“all heresies of Christianity” – there was NO orthodoxy in those days. What you consider “true christianity” was just one group amongst many, it was a heresy to all the others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
well said
LikeLike
Ken you just window shop – you have not read a single book by Ehrman or Bauer or Dunn et al. All you have read are world-view confirming evangelical scholars. Nice and safe for you and your views. Comfortable. Reassuring. Lazy…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I actually have read some of Dunn, Ehrman, Raymond Brown (NT. Introduction), and Geza Vermes per your suggestions,
( I have told you this several times, and given you credit for goading me into wasting my money on them; but you don’t seem to acknowledge that.)
but I admit I have not read every word – because of lack of time; and mostly because they are INCREDIBLY BORING. Liberalism and skepticism is incredibly boring and does not hold my attention. But I have read a lot of that stuff, and had to read Bauer and Bultmann and others in seminary, which I told you before. They are also incredibly boring.
I still those words by Dunn, Ehrman, R. Brown and Vermes and also Reza Aslan (the Iranian guy who also spouts liberal theology in his “Zealot” book.) I am in the middle of Ehrman’s “How Jesus Became God” and Dunn’s “Jesus Remembered: the Making of Christianity volume 1”.
Anyway, it is not laziness, it is the combination of lack of time to spend on reading every word (as you seem to demand); and the incredible boring dryness of liberal crap that has no faith or life to it.
When I read their stuff, they honestly are just rehashing older scholars like Bauer, Bultmann, Schleirmacher, Paul Tillic, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, and John Dominic Crossan. They all repeat the same garbage and kufr (unbelief). But I will interact with a passage that I have from them that I don’t have to waste any more money on. (smile)
LikeLike
oops; typo:
I still those words by Dunn, Ehrman, R. Brown and Vermes and also Reza Aslan (the Iranian guy who also spouts liberal theology in his “Zealot” book.)
should have been:
I still own those works (books) by Dunn, Ehrman, R. Brown and Vermes and also Reza Aslan (the Iranian guy who also spouts liberal theology in his “Zealot” book.)
I will read as needed, and keep for reference. If you quote something from those specific books, so I can then look them up and read up, Lord willing, as time allows; I will gladly interact with them.
Dunn – Jesus Remembered: the Making of Christology volume 1
Ehrman – How Jesus became God
Raymond Brown – NT Introduction
Vermes – the Navitiy – history and legend
Reza Aslan – Zealot
LikeLike
As-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatu Allah wa barakatuh. I would really love to get it in the PDF format, could you please send it to me in my email? Jazaka Allah Khairan.
LikeLike
Dear Paul; I found a much better explanation for that verse: If Q.9:29 meant that the cause of war was the unbelievers unbelief, then jizya wouldn’t have been accepted from them! Since when they give jizya it is prohibited to fight them, but they are still abiding to their unbelief. Now, is the justification for war being an unbeliever and not paying jizya? The answer is again no, since all jurists agree that jizya is not taken from women, children, the old, …etc So if the reason for war was being an unbeliever + not paying jizya then jizya would have been taken from women, children, the old …etc So the only remaining option is that the cause of war that can be concluded from Q.9:29 is that it is ḥirāba, a term that comes from the noun ḥarb meaning war, we can thus translate it as ‘waging war’. Hence Q.9:29 is in line with the Islamic justification of war, which is to repulse aggression and assure security and protection to Muslim as well as non-Muslim citizens. And that is basically what the vast majority of jurists, from Hanbalis, Malikis, al-Shafi’i in one opinion, and Hanafis as well as in Twelver Shi’ism, state, that the justification of war is ḥirāba and not unbelief in itself. And as the verse Q.9:13 preceding Q.9:29 makes it clear:
How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers.
Qurʾān – 9:13
And the attestation to that is that Q.9:29 was revealed after an aggression: The very early exegete, Mujāhid ibn Jabr (d. 104H) explained that this fighting was revealed in reference to the Prophet Muhammad’s (ﷺ) campaign against the Byzantine empire. The Prophet ﷺ sent al-Harith ibn Umayr al-Azdi as an emissary to the Byzantine vassal state of the Ghassanids, but the chieftain Shurahbeel committed the shocking crime of tying up the emissary, torturing him, and murdering him. When an army was dispatched to confront the Ghassanids for their crime, the Vicarius Theodorus summoned a large force of Roman soldiers to engage in war against the Muslims in the Battle of Mu’tah. Thus, this verse was revealed in regards to fighting within an existing war against an enemy political entity, namely the Byzantine empire, which lead to preparations for the expedition of Tabuk. The hostility of the group in question is mentioned in the this very Qur’anic passage itself, which goes on to state Q.9:32 that this instruction refers to those “who attempt to extinguish the light of Islam with their mouths“, which Aḍ-Ḍahāk (d. 105H) stated meant “they attempt to destroy Muhammad and his companions.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
An important remark by the great scholar al-Buti:
الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين … فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.
The verse [Q. 9:29] commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words … For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I truly appreciate your efforts and
I am waiting for your next post thanks once again.
LikeLike