Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad compares the Christian view of salvation through Jesus and the Islamic view of salvation through thousands of Prophets sent to every nation throughout history in light of Divine love and justice.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogging Theology 
That being the evangelical view, does not mean that is the “Christian view of salvation” as you’ve mildly put it. And of course, Timothy’s statements are not particularly meaningful, in the following ways:
(1) God prescribing himself mercy in the Qur’ān does not mean much, and oddly enough, exactly on the same premises he critiqued Christianity on — although I would turn this around, and suggest that Christianity’s form of eschatological/soteriological understanding of mercy is a lot more encompassing than that of Islam.
(2) What exactly is the Christian view?
Paul does write on those who are not aware of Christ, and suggested that there is also inherent call to believe in a God, regardless if they’ve received the Gospel or not — but this isn’t Paul’s only opinion, and he concludes by expressing universalist tendencies in his later work. In regard to this exact point, then this is no different to Islam. Some people have suggested that God does not punish a people unless they have been sent a messenger (cf. Q17:15). The usual intention of most people when propagating such a verse is on the topic of those who are theologically unaware of Islam. Although partially correct in that God does not punish until a messenger is sent, this is not in reference as to what would happen in the afterlife, since Q17:15 is better understood as the temporal form of punishment, considering the wider context of the destruction of towns and the generations after Noah is the following verses (cf. Q17:15-18). In fact, Q17:15 is preceded by an explicitly eschatological narration on what happens to those who disbelieve (Q17:8-9) “Indeed, this Qur’an guides to that which is most suitable and gives good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a great reward. And that those who do not believe in the Hereafter – We have prepared for them a painful punishment”. Now, there is something to note here, however, and it’s the highlighted. If you are unaware of Islam, then that does not justify a lack of belief in a God — not necessarily the Islamic God — and this is why there are multiple references to a belief in the signs of Allah, where it discusses the formation of Earth and life in general and these being the signs to believe (cf. Q29:19-23, where a rejection of these “signs”, and there is no mention of the Qur’an here, will deprive them from any mercy). This is corroborated in Q40:35, where those who are unaware – or are not sent an authority (this is a difficult statement, as its meaning can be multi-faceted, but I’m leaning towards its usage in Q6:81) – will still be equated with some kind of responsibility. This resolves the hard literalism and the philosophical implications that would arise when most people discuss “God does not punish unless a messenger has been sent”, since what is to be made out of those who have not heard of Islam but committed atrocities, or possibly despised the concept of a God – a rejection of their so-called fitra? Will they not be punished? The most likely answer would be yes. But apart from that, Christianity and Islam share very little in regard to salvation.
First and foremost, read the entirety of Romans, and in particular, St. Paul’s narrative on salvation (cf. Romans 1-11 — in particular Romans 1:19-20, Romans 5 and 6) and place this in the context of St. Paul’s concluding theological remark in Romans 11:28-32:
“As regards the gospel they are enemies of God[a] for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
This piece of literature is critical, as it can be contrasted that of the Qur’ānic view of mercy. We have for instance, Matthew 5:43-48, where it is claimed that one must love absolutely everyone — including your enemies — in order to be perfect like your father (I would also add that within the Christian narrative, love is meaningless unless substantiated — this is why you’ve got Romans 9 and Esau is suggested to being “hated” but St. Paul would carry on to write that all be shown mercy), but this is contrary to Islam, where mercy is conditional on some kind of dictatorial formulation in which one must pledge allegiance to Muhammad and God in order to receive some kind of salvation, otherwise God won’t love those who do not love Muhammad or him (cf. Q3:31-32 “Say, [O Muhammad], “If you should love Allah , then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” Say, “Obey Allah and the Messenger.” But if they turn away – then indeed, Allah does not love the disbelievers.”) and will coerce those who reject Muhammad and God into an eternal hell that (Q72:23) is beyond one’s comprehension — almost barbaric torture, and if just metaphors (this wouldn’t have much weight, since Muhammad demonstrated literalism throughout, suggesting that the Christians are disbelievers for claiming that there are no fruits in heaven, and that the “fire is reserved for those of hell” in extra-Qur’ānic literature) then appreciate that these are metaphors for a horrible outcome — for instance, garments of fire, scalding hot water being poured on the scalps, being consumed so that their intestines are ripped, skin being roasted until it is replaced so that the skin can be roasted again, no reprieve, and no opportunity to leave. Hence, how can Timothy insist on an Islamic form of mercy, when that mercy is certainly not extended to those who disbelieve after receiving the message, see Q29:23, and also Q76:31 — where God admits whoever he wishes into his mercy, but will punish the wrongdoers (wrongdoers in Islam can encompass those who may be seemingly innocent – the disbeliever, even if he has done nothing wrong). In fact, consider the rhetoric that is used in “Our Lord, You have encompassed all things in mercy and knowledge”, and place this in the wider context of the verses themselves, in which this mercy is conditional on belief (protect from evil consequences that Day – You will have given him mercy[…] Indeed, those who disbelieve will be addressed, “The hatred of Allah for you was even greater than your hatred of yourselves when you were invited to faith, but you refused.” (Q40:5-10).
Interestingly, take note of Gospel of Matthew, where there isn’t a strict salvation narrative on a belief in a God (although when asked, he suggested so — but consider this in the wider context of the Judean Matthean community), but rather, almost exclusively on one’s deeds. Now, Christian eschatology/salvation is inconsistent, but there is more evidence to indicate annihilationism and universalism as opposed to eternal torment — something which cannot be rejected in Islam (cf. Q3:36-37, Q35:36-37).
LikeLike
I’m interested to know if you, Timothy, or other proponents of Islam, have actually read the Qur’ān? I mean, it appears as though there is a simple rehash of a common verse that is used to propose a certain theology, but when placed within context, does little to prove the proposed theology (cf. Q40:5-10). Or are people aware, but prefer to suggest alternative ideologies to protect against one’s own theological embarrassments?
I’m hoping it’s the former, since the latter suggests questionable characteristics and personalities.
LikeLike
I forgot to add, those who reject the Islamic narrative of God will have their deeds considered as worthless (Q18:100-106, Q25:20-23, Q24:39, Q47:1-2, Q47:28, Q47:32, Q39:65), which goes on to highlight the lack of “divine” love and mercy, as encapsulated by Muhammad’s/Qur’anic authors’ concept of God. The consequences of rendering their deeds as worthless is an eternal torment where…
Q22:19-22 “These are two adversaries who have disputed over their Lord. But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water. By which is melted that within their bellies and [their] skins. And for [striking] them are maces of iron. Every time they want to get out of Hellfire from anguish, they will be returned to it, and [it will be said], “Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire!”
Mash’Allah, ya3ni the level of divine love here is beyond comprehension. This God is truly merciful, in which the above that should usually make us turn in disgust, is applauded as mercy. :3
LikeLike
Nowhere in the Bible does it say salvation was stuffed at one point in history. Rather than using biblical views, he’s chosen to attack a particular doctrine of Christianity, as Zozo mentioned. Even in Jesus’ own words “For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:37, also in Romans 14:12 it says “So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.” Many other New Testament passages make mention of this, so in the end, regardless of what Jesus did for us the responsibility is still for each individual.
In the Quran, Allah gets angry with human beings for not taking heed to his message, reinforced with gruesome descriptions of hellfire in the afterlife. Yet Allah then goes on to say that He is the one who guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills too. So all in all, Allah has already predestined who will be believers and non-believers, so why does He still get so angry when He should already be aware? More importantly, where is the mercy and compassion found in leading me astray?
According to the Quran, when my skin burns off in hell, Allah will replace it with new skin again and again (Surah 4:56). He will pour hot, boiling water into my mouth and burn my insides (Surah 47:15 and more). Why would He torment people in such a way when He chooses whom He guides?
LikeLike
‘Nowhere in the Bible does it say salvation was stuffed at one point in history.’
The NT in numerous place teaches (especially Paul) that mankind’s salvation from death and sin is found *only* through the merits of Jesus redeeming death the cross.
LikeLike
“I’m interested to know if you, Timothy, or other proponents of Islam, have actually read the Qur’ān?”
LOL!!
LikeLike
“LOL!!”
A productive counter-argument. I mean, it’s quite telling that you’ve decided to upload this video, a rather superficial and weak one at best, to highlight the supposed weakness of Christianity within the context of Islam. But yet, when that is proven to be not the case, your reply is “LOL” to either (A) you haven’t read the Qur’an (B) you have, but you’re disingenuous. I mean, I thought you’re a genuine guy, so I was working on the assumption that you haven’t read the Qur’an in its entirety, and that you’ve relied solely on some Sufi conjecture/tumblr quotation/some lecture by bias individual. But if you have read the Qur’an, and yet you decided to still link this video, then you’re not a particularly genuine individual.
” Jesus redeeming death the cross.”
Which is for all man, and not only for those who believe (see Romans 11, in particular Romans 11:28-32, Romans 5 and 6). For a greater insight into Christian universalism, see Ramelli’s latest monograph, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. Salvation mechanism is different to those who are unaware of Christ/before Christ (cf. and who have heard… etc, in both the Gospels and in the end of Romans 10 — but as I mentioned, read St. Paul’s concluding remark in Romans 11:28-32). Salvation, however, as I have highlighted just above and you seemed to have ignored, is dependent not only on Allah, but also a belief in Muhammad, and in the Qur’an, and in the prophets beforehand (after coming across Islam).
LikeLike
I suggest addressing the arguments, if you wish to retain any legitimacy. If not, then that’s absolutely up to you: but your meandering in Islamic virtues such as “divine love” is not convincing to any who possesses the knowledge/common sense. But of course, I’m doubtful that this blog is here to convince any one but yourself.
LikeLike
Let us remind ourselves of the initial proposal that Islam’s form of “divine love” and “mercy” is encapsulated/substantiated in its teachings on salvation.
Once again…
Q72:23
But [I have for you] only notification from Allah , and His messages.” And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger – then indeed, for him is the fire of Hell; they will abide therein forever.
Q22:19-22 “These are two adversaries who have disputed over their Lord. But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water. By which is melted that within their bellies and [their] skins. And for [striking] them are maces of iron. Every time they want to get out of Hellfire from anguish, they will be returned to it, and [it will be said], “Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire!”
Q35:36-37
And for those who disbelieve will be the fire of Hell. [Death] is not decreed for them so they may die, nor will its torment be lightened for them. Thus do we recompense every ungrateful one. And they will cry out therein, “Our Lord, remove us; we will do righteousness – other than what we were doing!” But did We not grant you life enough for whoever would remember therein to remember, and the warner had come to you? So taste [the punishment], for there is not for the wrongdoers any helper.
Define for me mercy, and try and show me how the above is merciful.
LikeLike
Max24, you might be interested in taking a look at the problem text Q7:179 “And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.”
As in, Allah has created people for Hell — that is their receptacle, and such human volition is out of the question — since it’s (li), or FOR hell.
LikeLike
Paul, once again nowhere does the bible say salvation was stuffed at one point in history. Yes the NT says that Jesus died for our sins, this is a free gift of grace by God but it still doesn’t end there. We have to show our faith through our actions/deeds, the only difference is that those particular deeds do not give us salvation otherwise people will have room to boast. Jesus’ gift puts us all on the same level, and it is one that is for everyone. For those people who don’t know Jesus or “believe” in him yet do good in their lives for others, Jesus could easily say to them ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40). When people walked away from Jesus when he told them to follow him, he didn’t chase after them, fight them or cry, he let them walk because it is their choice whether they accept him or not. In the Quran, you have no choice, you must believe in Allah and His messenger otherwise a graphic, torturous hell awaits you.
Thanks Zozo, and yet Allah is supposed to be merciful and compassionate. In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says hell was created for the devil and his angels (i.e demons).
Another problem with the Quran is that Allah says on multiple occasions that he could have made all of mankind believers (Surah 2:253, 5:48, 10:99-100 and more). It logically follows then that Allah should be responsible for those who end up disbelieving? So why did he create hell for the very people he chose to lead astray?
Allah also claims to be able to fight battles for the believers but rather chooses to test them in armed conflict (Surah 47:4). What all these passages show is that Allah seems to brag and boast a lot about what he can do but never actually does it. Given these contradictions and more, it is clear that when Allah says he is merciful and compassionate he really isn’t.
I also recently found out that madinan surah’s such as Surah 9 and 47 are among the last revelations. In fact, Surah 9 is the last revealed Surah chronologically. This means all those peaceful Meccan surahs really have been abrogated. David wood and those others were right all along, and the tafsir commentators would agree with them too. An example of abrogation would be Surah 2:253 which says there is no compulsion in religion. Although Surah 2 is quite late, some surahs strangely have a mix of Meccan and medinan verses, and Surah 2:253 is usually considered to be Meccan or early medinan, i.e before Muhammad had power and influence. Once Muhammad became more powerful, this verse was replaced with Surah 3:85 where no religion other than Islam will be accepted from people. Even if I’ve got the timing wrong, the contradiction in those 2 verse is self-evident.
Paul and anyone else reading, I’d recommend you read a book called “23 years…” by Ali Dashti. He gives a good objective analysis of Muhammad and the Quran, in a way that is not anti-Islamic nor a sugar-coated fairytale about how amazing the Quran is.
LikeLike
zozo, have you noticed Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad argues against a radical evangelical view of “salvation”? Which seems to be in line with your “Christian universalism”.
LikeLike
Salam Burhanuddin. There were three layers to my initial post. I was dealing with Paul’s twisting of the video’s proposition (I mentioned this immediately, and said “That being the evangelical view, does not mean that is the “Christian view of salvation” as you’ve mildly put it.” — this is in reference to Paul).
The later two portions deal with the Christian stance, which is directed towards Paul – since I’m aware that Timothy may have been referring to the evangelical position – and what the Islamic stance on salvation is, which is directed towards both Timothy and Paul.
LikeLike
zozo, zo you agree with Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad that the radical evangelical view is wrong. I understand your opinion about “Islamic salvation” as insisting on a radical literal (a radical evangelical so to speak) interpretation. Odd.
LikeLike
Of course the evangelical view is wrong. I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with an evangelical on anything.
I deal with the metaphorical slightly in my initial post, but I wouldn’t claim that that this is a literal interpretation of the Qur’anic/Islamic concept of salvation.
LikeLike
zo zo, you seem to ignore the explicit literal fact that no one will be dealt with unjustly. Those who are “punished” agree they deserve it, it is just consequence and they have to blame only themselves
LikeLike
Burhanuddin, that’s a claim, not a reality. If Bashar al-Assad dictated that “because of your opposition to my presidency, you will be punished for this treason. I will burn your skin through, and replace such skin with another, to ensure that you’ll never stop suffering. But let me assure you, this is a form of justice, since one cannot oppose me”. Justice needs to be substantiated, and so does mercy. I’m not only dealing with the semantics, but the substantiating of words. Mercy does not mean mercy if you’re torturing others. If God can’t even get this simple concept correct, then I worry about his concept of justice.
LikeLike
zozo, Allah does not punish them, they punish themselves. As you display a very anthropomorphic and time-space related understanding, I put it this way. There are laws of physics, and there are “spiritual” laws. If you deny gravity and jump off a roof, you have to face the consequences. If you try to annihilate Absolute Truth during your lifetime, you will be annihilated by that Truth timelessly. And it is clear explicit reality in the Quran, that Allah does not treat his creatures unjustly.
LikeLike
But Burhanuddin, I don’t deal with interpolation or conjecture either. It is not I who presents an “anthropomorphic” understanding. I’ve already addressed this…
“almost barbaric torture, and if just metaphors (this wouldn’t have much weight, since Muhammad demonstrated literalism throughout, suggesting that the Christians are disbelievers for claiming that there are no fruits in heaven, and that the “fire is reserved for those of hell” in extra-Qur’ānic literature) then appreciate that these are metaphors for a horrible outcome”
“Allah does not punish them, they punish themselves”
No, it is Allah, through the angels (see Q9:74 “Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter.”, but as guided by the angels Q66:6 “angels, harsh and severe; they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded”.
LikeLike
Would a Loving God stuff all of salvation into a single moment in History? Thank you for this inspiring thought.
There’s another aspect to it. Would a Loving God stuff himself in a male white caucasian specimen of exclusively one species?
A sexist, racist, speciecist concept.
LikeLike
It’s an oddity that you would proclaim that it’s a “sexist, racist, and speciecist concept” when the Incarnation, Christ, has nothing to do with the aforementioned.
“God the Lord surrendered his own Son to death on the cross for the fervent love of creation…Yet this was not because he could not redeem us in another way, but so that his surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher unto us. And by the death of his Only-begotten Son he made us near to himself. Yea, if he had had anything more precious, he would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be his own. Because of his great love for us it was his pleasure not to do violence to our freedom, although he is able to do so, but he chose that we should draw near to him by the love of our understanding. For the sake of his love for us and obedience to his Father, Christ joyfully took upon himself insult and sorrow…In like manner, when the saints become perfect, they all attain to this perfection, and by the superabundant outpouring of their love and compassion on all men, they resemble God.”
Interestingly, a more abundant theology/philosophy than what is espoused by Islam. I would also add the rather racist, sexist, and speciecist, and minor shirk that is found within Islamic theology on salvation. Muhammad, a man, the created, is placed on the same pedestal as God in order to receive salvation (if one has come across the message). I mean, in Judaism, there is no issue of this — where salvation is dependent on a belief in a God, and not necessarily the Prophets. In Christianity, the same is applicable, however, in accordance to traditional accounts, Christ is God. In Islam, Muhammad is explicitly distinct from God, yet in order to be saved, one can’t disobey the created — Muhammad, and neither the Prophets — (Q72:23, Q3:70-85). Is the Qur’an only a Qur’an when elaborated in Arabic?
I mean, let’s try and be consistent here Burhanuddin. I would also suggest addressing my earlier comments.
LikeLike
I forgot to mention the seemingly sado masochistic aspects of this kind of salvation
“God the Lord surrendered his own Son to death on the cross … Christ joyfully took upon himself insult and sorrow ….
How about cannibalism? Eating the flesh, drinking the blood …
LikeLike
“I forgot to mention the seemingly sado masochistic aspects of this kind of salvation”
I’m not sure how this is relevant to salvation. I suggest looking into the moral-theory behind atonement, the Incarnation and Crucifixion. Secondly, I love how this is “sado-masochistic” when it was Christ who was killed for the sake of his devotion to the truth, and as put John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
“How about cannibalism? Eating the flesh, drinking the blood …”
What does Transubstantiation in the Euscharist have to do with this? I’m pretty confident none of us on here are Catholic. Regardless, I suggest answering my previous assertions.
LikeLike