In a fascinating article on Wiki we read of the rights of non-Muslims under the Chief of Media – the prophet Muhammad:
The article comments:
The Charter of Medina also instituted peaceful methods of dispute resolution among diverse groups living as one people but without assimilating into one religion, language, or culture. Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam states: “The constitution reveals Muhammad’s great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an ummah (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations.”
This evidence clearly demonstrates just how unIslamic ISIS is in its persecution of ‘People of the Book, and others.
Blogging Theology 
However,
later, Omar expelled all Christians and Jews from all of Arabia.
How do you explain that?
Hadith from Sahih Muslim:
(21)Chapter: Expulsion of Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula
(21) باب إِخْرَاجِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى مِنْ جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ
It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:
I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
وَحَدَّثَنِي زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الضَّحَّاكُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، – وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُ – حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، يَقُولُ أَخْبَرَنِي عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ “ لأُخْرِجَنَّ الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى مِنْ جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ حَتَّى لاَ أَدَعَ إِلاَّ مُسْلِمًا ” .
Reference : Sahih Muslim 1767 a
In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 75
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 19, Hadith 4366
LikeLike
Ken do you admire the rights Muhammad gave to non-Muslims in Media? I do.
under evangelical rule in geneva under Calvin, or under Cromwell in England, or under the presbyterian evangelicals in Scotland there was no freedom of religion at all.
The freedom you laud in the West came about against the Christian faith by Enlightenment thinkers – not your co-religionists. You are deluded if you think evangelicals believed in free speech before western liberalism and secularism gave it to you.
LikeLike
Christians have never had freedom of religion under Islamic rule, since they have never been permitted to evangelize and persuade peacefully for Muslims to become Christians.
has to include evangelism and persuasion, like you have that freedom in the west to do Da’wa and persuade by words and argumentation.
Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49
LikeLike
“Christians have never had freedom of religion under Islamic rule, since they have never been permitted to evangelize and persuade peacefully for Muslims to become Christians.”
This is false, at least as far as the early conquests go. Daniel Brown notes: No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690… [According to tradition, Muhammad died in 632. -B.C.]
LikeLiked by 2 people
The freedom you laud in the West came about against the Christian faith by Enlightenment thinkers – not your co-religionists. You are deluded if you think evangelicals believed in free speech before western liberalism and secularism gave it to you.
It took a long time to return to original Biblical Christianity of 0-380 AD.
Calvin and Knox, etc. inherited the Roman Catholic ideas of church and state together and it took some time to shake that off also.
Same for infant baptism, which was wrong, unBiblical, and was related to citizenship and church-state unity.
LikeLike
Daniel Brown needs to give evidence.
The pact of Omar, developed form Omar Ibn al Khattab (Caliph 634-644 AD) to Omar Ibn Adbul Azziz (715 AD) is clear that Dhimmis could not evangelize or build new churches.
LikeLike
Ken Temple: Daniel Brown needs to give evidence.
You are the one who needs to give evidence. Prof.Brown goes through the evidence in his book.
Ken Temple: The pact of Omar, developed form Omar Ibn al Khattab (Caliph 634-644 AD) to Omar Ibn Adbul Azziz (715 AD) is clear that Dhimmis could not evangelize or build new churches.
The Pact of Umar is questionable. Prof.Asma Afsaruddin notes, “Modern scholars have regarded this document with considerable skepticism for good reason. The Pact of ‘Umar is not mentioned by any early scholar before roughly the ninth century. As a document, the pact encodes sentiments toward non-Muslims that were more prevalent in the later ‘Abbasid era than during roughly the first two centuries of Islam and appears to show the influence of medieval Christian European laws concerning the status of Jews. The attribution of less tolerant attitudes to ‘Umar, a towering paradigmatic figure of piety and integrity whose practices were of
normative value, justified such attitudes for some and made them potentially enforceable by later authorities. Contrast the tone and stipulations of the Pact of ‘Umar, as indicated above, with the agreement drawn up by the second caliph upon the surrender of Jerusalem in 638, the terms of which read:
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the security which
‘Umar, the servant of God, the commander of the faithful, grants to the people
of Ilya.58 He grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for their lives, their
possessions, their churches and their crosses, and for all that concerns their religion.
Their churches shall not be changed into dwelling places, nor destroyed,
neither shall they nor their appurtenances be in any way diminished, nor the
crosses of the inhabitants nor anything of their possessions, nor shall any restriction
be placed upon them in the matter of their faith, nor shall any one of them
be harmed.
LikeLike
Yes, as far as we know, the Pact of Umar was developed from Omar (2nd Caliph) to Omar Ibn Abdul Azziz ( Umayyad Caliph from 717-720 AD) (sorry I previously wrote 715 from (bad) memory.)
It still shows that there was no freedom to evangelize and peacefully persuade Muslims to become Christians.
LikeLike
‘Yes, as far as we know..’
Who’s the ‘we’? You and Sam Shamoun?
LikeLiked by 1 person
means everybody – the articles on it show the scholars say there is ambiguity about all of it being from Omar 1, but it shows development and implementation from 717-720 and onward after that.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is acceptable in an Islamic society for Christians to ‘evangelize’ Muslims, no. It is not in the public interest to leave Muslims vulnerable to religions that would lead them to the fires of Hell – as shirk does.
In all the Christian societies that have been ruled by the religious ideology Ken subscribes to it – Evangelicalism – Muslims have not even been permitted to live, let alone worship freely.
Ken righteous hypocrisy knows no bounds.
LikeLike
Ken you write of the ‘original Biblical Christianity of 0-380 AD.’
There was no such thing Ken. The historical evidence is against you. Even your own scholars are honest enough to admit this:
https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/10/10/early-christian-diversity/
LikeLike
Here I thought Ken would be persuaded by real scholars. Turns out this guy is just another fundamentalist Wood-Shamoun groupie.
LikeLiked by 2 people
oh yes – just without the personal abuse.
LikeLike
Salam, keep away from wikipidiea (not in this case but sometimes they are soo biased).
LikeLike
I don’t think it is acceptable in an Islamic society for Christians to ‘evangelize’ Muslims, no. It is not in the public interest to leave Muslims vulnerable to religions that would lead them to the fires of Hell – as shirk does.
That proves it. Thank you. This shows for all your talk about Muhammad’s constitution, your statement here shows and proves that your boasting of it is not real and is not true freedom or noble or good. This proves that if you were in power, you would be unjust.
In all the Christian societies that have been ruled by the religious ideology Ken subscribes to it – Evangelicalism – Muslims have not even been permitted to live, let alone worship freely.
Ken righteous hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Wrong; the Baptist movement was the first western movement to argue for separation of the church from the government and also against infant baptism. In those historically Protestant church-states of the past, the Church of England was one of them – they persecuted the Baptists and Puritans and non-conformists. (like John Bunyon, etc.)
They started before the Englightenment. The Englightment also grew in the west. Today, we enjoy the tradition of the baptist and free-church movements against the union of church and state.
. . . to leave Muslims vulnerable to religions that would lead them to the fires of Hell – as shirk does.
This proves you don’t believe in freedom of speech or thought or any kind of freedom to choose.
We (western values based on Judeo-Christian principles) allow for people to choose if they want to go to hell or not. Our philosophy is superior. We allow Muslims to preach and have mosques; but if you were in power, you just proved that you would be unjust.
LikeLike
Ken don’t be inconsistent and a hypocrite. You do not believe in free speech either. It is not a principle taught in the Bible, or by Jesus or by Paul, or anywhere in the early church. You praise a secularist and liberal value not a Christian one.
In many countries in the West it is a criminal offense to question any aspect of the Holocaust. Historians who doubt the official narrative have been sent to jail about this. In the USA there are people who are in jail for life for simply supporting Palestinian charities.
Freedom of speech is not permitted if you advocate pedophilia, hate speech, violence against other people, and a number of other issues. This has nothing to do with the Bible – which commands the death penalty for apostasy and worshiping other gods, commands that Jesus upheld.
Your notion of ‘justice’ is simply a mirror of the Spirit of the Age, predictably conformist, and has nothing to do with the Bible. If you were honest you would admit this.
Islam looks holistically at the whole of life both in this world and the next. Those who are not content to practice their religion and seek to lure Muslims into worshiping the prophets, thereby imperiling the souls of Muslims, are acting contrary to justice, social peace, and God’s will.
I think Thomas Aquinas would have understood.
These are my thoughts. I am not an Islamic scholar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In all the Christian societies that have been ruled by the religious ideology Ken subscribes to it – Evangelicalism – Muslims have not even been permitted to live, let alone worship freely.
Ken righteous hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Baptists, Puritans, Congregationalists were among the first among this movement.
So you are wrong Paul. Retract what you wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist
LikeLike
Ken don’t be inconsistent and a hypocrite. You do not believe in free speech either. It is not a principle taught in the Bible, or by Jesus or by Paul, or anywhere in the early church. You praise a secularist and liberal value not a Christian one.
You don’t know American history or understanding of “freedom of speech” very well then. There are well known limitations which Judeo -Christian traditional values assume – for example – Oliver Wendell Holme’s Supreme Court Decision – “it is not protected free speech to falsely yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre.” (when there is no fire)
LikeLike
Ken tell me this:
where in the Bible does it advocate freedom of speech?
where does Moses advocate it?
where does Jesus advocate it?
where does Paul advocate it?
where do any of the Church Fathers advocate it?
this should be a piece of cake for you – after all it’s a ‘Judeo -Christian value’
LikeLike
In many countries in the West it is a criminal offense to question any aspect of the Holocaust.
Which ones besides Germany?
You can understand some of that right (for Germany)? (they are rightly ashamed of what they did and how the German people allowed Hitler to come to power and do those evil things)
or do you deny the Holocaust also?
Historians who doubt the official narrative have been sent to jail about this.
where besides Germany?
LikeLike
apart from Germany? Most other european countries.
Wiki states:
Holocaust denial is illegal in 14 European nations. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, some, such as Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania, were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and many of these also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as the expression of Nazi symbols.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
LikeLike
Ok, I did a google search and see that 14 European countries have laws against holocaust denial. Those are the countries that suffered the most under them, like Austria and Germany, etc. England does not have that law; neither does USA.
LikeLike
I stated correctly:
‘In all the Christian societies that have been ruled by the religious ideology Ken subscribes to it – Evangelicalism – Muslims have not even been permitted to live, let alone worship freely.’
Ken claimed:
‘Baptists, Puritans, Congregationalists were among the first among this movement.
So you are wrong Paul. Retract what you wrote.’
Reply:
No I’m not wrong Ken you are.
The article you linked to says rightly
‘”Nonconformist” or “Non-conformist” was a term used in England and Wales after the Act of Uniformity 1662 to refer to a Protestant Christian who did not “conform” to the governance and usages of the established Church of England. English Dissenters (such as Puritans) who violated the Act of Uniformity 1559 may retrospectively be considered Nonconformists, typically by practising or advocating radical, sometimes separatist, dissent with respect to the established state church. By the late 19th-century the term included Reformed Christians (Presbyterians and Congregationalists), Baptists, and Methodists, among other groups. Historically, Nonconformists were restricted from many spheres of public life.’
But I stated very clearly,
‘In all the Christian societies that have been ruled by the religious ideology Ken subscribes to it – Evangelicalism – Muslims have not even been permitted to live, let alone worship freely.’
That is historically true. The English dissenters (unless they had political power under Cromwell and in Scotland) were a minority in the land and did not rule.
LikeLike
There are many kinds of “Evangelicalism”. The dissenters, Puritans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Reformed Baptists, later, Methodists – did not rule, as you admitted. So you are wrong.
The “religious ideology Ken subscribes to” is not what Calvin in Geneva, nor Cromwell held – the Baptists and dissenters and Puritans were not like that; and they are closest to my views.
so you are wrong.
LikeLike
lol Ken you keep refuting yourself!
‘The dissenters, Puritans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Reformed Baptists, later, Methodists – did not rule, as you admitted.’
But that was my point!
When they did rule in Scotland and England (in according with your religious ideology) they did not permit Muslims to live in these countries and practice their faith. That was my point Ken.
Do keep up!
LikeLike
But you accused me of having that same ideology – that was wrong. Retract that.
LikeLike
You get your religious knickers in a twist too when you say:
‘The “religious ideology Ken subscribes to” is not what Calvin in Geneva, nor Cromwell held – the Baptists and dissenters and Puritans were not like that; and they are closest to my views.’
For your information, as every schoolboy knows, Cromwell and his government were Puritans!
Ouch!
LikeLike
The Baptists and Puritans are the closest to my views; so you were wrong on accusing me of holding to views like Calvin’s Geneva and Cromwell’s England.
LikeLike
Ken you are in a muddle probably because you do not know English religious history very well.
You admit your views were just like the Puritans. I agree! And they did not believe in freedom of speech for Muslims (or anyone else lol).
Ken you are so confused!
LikeLike
Ken tell me this:
where in the Bible does it advocate freedom of speech?
where does Moses advocate it?
where does Jesus advocate it?
where does Paul advocate it?
where do any of the Church Fathers advocate it?
this should be a piece of cake for you – after all it’s a ‘Judeo -Christian value’
LikeLike
oh yeah; I forgot that Cromwell was Puritan.
But Baptists was what I was more getting at.
LikeLike
Finally we are getting somewhere!
Tell me: when Christians were in power in the 16th, or 17th, or 18th centuries in England or in the colonies (North America) was there religious freedom of speech for Muslims?
LikeLike
I was thinking more of the American tradition of Baptists.
LikeLike
As I already commented above:
you claimed:
‘The dissenters, Puritans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Reformed Baptists, later, Methodists – did not rule, as you admitted.’
When they did rule in Scotland and England as Puritans (in accordance with your religious ideology) they did not permit Muslims to live in these countries and practice their faith.
That was my point too Ken.
LikeLike
‘I was thinking more of the American tradition of Baptists.’
Wrong answer.
I asked you:
when Christians were in power in the 16th, or 17th, or 18th centuries in England or in the colonies (North America) was there religious freedom of speech for Muslims?
yes or no.
LikeLike
Also I am still waiting for an answer to my easy question:
where in the Bible does it advocate freedom of speech?
where does Moses advocate it?
where does Jesus advocate it?
where does Paul advocate it?
where do any of the Church Fathers advocate it?
this should be a piece of cake for you – after all it’s a ‘Judeo -Christian value’
LikeLike
I don’t know; there probably were not very many Muslims living in England or the colonies at those times. I would have to have more time to research that issue.
But my point is that you said, “the religious ideology that Ken follows – Evangelicalism” – that was wrong, since I don’t follow the kind you wrote about, which was when church and state were unified. There are many forms of Evangelicalism that don’t follow that “church-state unity” as Calvin’s Geneva, the original Anglican Church, and Cromwell did.
LikeLike
when Christians were in power in the 16th, or 17th, or 18th centuries in England or in the colonies (North America) was there religious freedom of speech for Muslims?
you changed it from “Evangelicalism” to “Christians”
LikeLike
Also I am still waiting for an answer to my easy question:
where in the Bible does it advocate freedom of speech?
where does Moses advocate it?
where does Jesus advocate it?
where does Paul advocate it?
where do any of the Church Fathers advocate it?
this should be a piece of cake for you – after all it’s a ‘Judeo -Christian value’
LikeLike
Also I am still waiting for an answer to my easy question:
where in the Bible does it advocate freedom of speech?
where does Moses advocate it?
where does Jesus advocate it?
where does Paul advocate it?
where do any of the Church Fathers advocate it?
this should be a piece of cake for you – after all it’s a ‘Judeo -Christian value’
I think freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state are the result of the historical developments of experiencing the sins and abuses, violence, war, etc. of Christian history from the time after 380 AD to the Baptists/ free church movements of England (1600s) and the separation of church and state in USA.
It is based on principles such as in Matthew 26:52, Ephesians 6:10-20; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; John 18:36
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear, oh dear, Ken. None of these verses say anything at all about the importance of free speech. Zero.
Mega fail. Your ‘freedom’ beliefs are utterly unbiblical.
Now to the Church Fathers. Where did they advocate freedom of speech??
LikeLike
Also, I Corinthians chapter 5 and 6:9-11 speaks of church discipline and ex-communication, not punishment or violence, etc.
LikeLike
I admit I don’t know. the church fathers is a vast subject (writings from 70 AD to the 600s ) Lots of Origen and Augustine have never even translated into English yet !!
I am still working on Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius. (only read some of them; I think I have read most of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, but I would like to read more of Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine; but I admit it is too much to read and know about.
LikeLike
Take it from me Ken this American obsession with freedom of speech was not a concern for anyone in the Bible or the early church.
In fact the opposite is the case. Augustine spoke eloquently of compelling dissenters to remain within the Catholic Church (a view he based on the teaching of Jesus). Aquinas too as very hot against hersey and argued for dissenters to be tortured and executed. So did your Puritans.
So much for your much lauded ‘Judaeo-christian values’ – with no basis in the Jewish Bible or in the The New Testament or the fathers!
Mega fail – again!
LikeLike
Even the American understanding of it has some limitations, as I wrote about in the famous Supreme Court Case Ruling of Oliver Wendell Holmes, as not including saying falsely “fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
Speaker’s Corner in England is a good thing, don’t you think?
Isn’t that a freedom that has come down from the western traditions of Judeo-Christian values? (even with the secular Enlightenment influences)
LikeLike
So much for your much lauded ‘Judaeo-christian values’ – with no basis in the Jewish Bible or in the The New Testament or the fathers!
For the historical reason for the existence of Speakers Corner (nothing to do with your imaginary Judaeo-Christian values) see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner
LikeLike
Augustine and Aquinas were wrong on those areas.
especially if Aquinas’ writings influenced the Spanish Inquistion. That was wrong!
LikeLike
many Baptists see the Donatist movement in N. Africa as commendable and an ancient objection to the church-state unity and they were ones that Augustine was arguing to “compel them to come in” by force of the state.
LikeLike
But your views on freedom of speech and freedom of religion have no basis in the Jewish Bible or in the The New Testament or the fathers.
LikeLike
They are principles derived from those NT passages – like Ephesians 6:10-20 – “our struggle / wrestling / conflict / war is NOT against flesh and blood” – ie, no force or violence or conflict against people.
LikeLike
This passage you keep referring to contains no teaching at all about the importance of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It’s about resisting the devil. You cannot squeeze the American constitution out of this!
Ephesians 6:10-20
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. 15 As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. 16 With all of these,[b] take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
18 Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints. 19 Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it boldly, as I must speak.
LikeLike
For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh = we don’t fight or do violence against people – don’t you get that?
LikeLike
no I don’t get that. You are making way too much out of this passage.
Paul believed the state should use violence against those the Roman Empire deemed bad people (cf “the sword”). Remember Nero was the dictator when he wrote these chilling words:
Being Subject to Authorities
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.
LikeLike
Matthew 5:38-48 – Turn the other cheek; love your neighbor as yourself
John 18:36 – “My Kingdom is not of this world, if it was, My servants would be fighting . . . ”
Matthew 26:52 – put away your sword, for those that live by the sword will die by the sword
LikeLike
As I have proved, your views on freedom of speech and freedom of religion have no basis in the Jewish Bible or in the New Testament or the Fathers.
You project the values of your society (America) into Christianity then claim they are ‘Christian’. Nice trick.
LikeLike
That was pagan Rome government; and today applies to the secular governments. Obviously, we agree that there should be a government and that police and laws against murder, stealing, rape, etc. are a good thing. I agree that first degree murder carries the death penalty, as in Genesis 9:6 – the power of the sword of Romans 13 was later the basis for the just war theory – like the Allies against the Germans in WW1 and against the Nazis and Japanese in WW2.
western secular government with traditional Judaeo Christian values is superior to Sharia law Islam with no evangelism or freedom to change religions.
LikeLike
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (quoted Leviticus 19:18)
These principles of freedom from legalism are Superior to Islam.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
You said;
As I have proved, your views on freedom of speech and freedom of religion have no basis in the Jewish Bible or in the New Testament or the Fathers.
You project the values of your society (America) into Christianity then claim they are ‘Christian’. Nice trick.
I say;
I pray Allah Subhana Wa Tala strengthened your faith in Islam and of course all of us, and also have mercy on people like Ken Temple who has seen the truth clearly especially your interacting with him on this thread to prove he has been lying and all Christians have been lying for far too long that the West freedom of religion is Judeo-Christian without basis or proof.
Look at what Ken quoted and has nothing to do with freedom of religion
///////////////////////////////////////
Galatians 5:1
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (quoted Leviticus 19:18)
These principles of freedom from legalism are Superior to Islam.
//////////////////////////////////////
When the Muslims slaves arrived in the USA and north America, they were all force converted, that why almost all African Americans(Negroes at that time) were Christians but start to convert to other religions after the north liberals and south conservatives war to bring freedom of religion. The southern conservative Christians thinks any religion apart from their brand of Christianity must be saved to Christ and will not allow any freedom of religion and the liberal north rejected and won the war and there was freedom of religion.
THE FREEDOM OF REGION IN THE WEST IS COURTESY THE LIBERALS AND NOT CHRISTIANS BUT CHRISTIANS WANTS TO SAVE ANYONE FROM OTHER RELIGION TO CHRISTIANITY AND WILL NOT ALLOW DIFFERENT RELIGION TO EVANGELIZE. THE WILL NOT ALLOW THEIR FELLOW CHRISTIANS I.E. CATHOLICS, MORMONS,PROTESTANTS, GNOSTIC ETC. TO EVEN EXIST, BY PERSECUTING EACH OTHER UNTIL THE LIBERALS FORCED ON THEM.
Thanks, Paul Williams by clarifying to Ken Temple that, Islam allowed other faith to exist but will not allow its children to be exposed to worshiping a man like is doing in Syrian, Iraqi, Afghanistan and all refugee camps.
It is not criminal if I do not want my child to be exposed to worshiping man, which the Bible is clearly against. But Christians and their Churches and non Muslims were allowed to live with Muslims and can be found in the Quran and Hadith.
The West will allow prophet Mohammed to be ridiculed as free speech but when one questions holocaust which is also a free speech, will be sent to jail for the rest of his life. Free speech that is ok for some people in the west, but the same free speech is not ok. for some people is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ken Temple
You said;
western secular government with traditional Judaeo Christian values is superior to Sharia law Islam with no evangelism or freedom to change religions.
I say;
As Paul Williams kept correcting you and you refuse to accept, the secular government is not Judeo-Christian at all but secular or liberal or gnostic so God sake be truthful, you and all Christians to stop telling that lies because the same secular government says gays must marry and the Christians are against them, so their law could not be Judeo-Christian. The same law talks about abortion and other things that does not conform with the teachings of Judeo-Christian laws.
This is what Judeo-Christian law said about change of religion.
Luke 19:27
New International Version
Jesus said;
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”
1. Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
2. No Freedom of Speech
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
3. Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
Ken Temple, if someone will accuse other religion of intolerance, certainly not Christians.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Intellect thank you for your valuable comments.
Indeed Ken has created a new composite religion which can fairly be called ‘Right-wing American Fundamentalist Christianity’, a creed made up of bits of Paul’s theology; American supremacism; a bare faced falsification of history; and a good dose of Islamophobia.
This toxic brew he calls “Christianity”. But it has virtually no resemblance to the religion of Jesus and the gospel he preached. Jesus’ gospel message bears a striking similarity to the teaching of Islam, as prominent Christian theologians are increasingly acknowledging.
As Intellect has remarked the Galatians quotes have nothing to do with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Ken has abandoned exegesis for eisegesis. This is because nowhere in the Bible are these liberal secular values advocated or even mentioned once. No Church Father ever wrote defending these values. This is highly significant as illustrates how far from their faith Ken has fallen.
As for Paul, well he became an apostate from Judaism, the religion of Jesus. He longed to be free from God’s Law. He saw God’s commandments as ‘slavery’ and a ‘curse’. He claimed in Ephesians 2:15 (wrongly) that Jesus had “abolished the Torah” – in direct contradiction to Jesus himself in Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says he has not come to abolish the law.
Paul’s ‘freedom’ has nothing to do with the American Way. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and religion. That is a false misreading of Galatians. Paul wanted to be free from Judaism.
In Galatians 3:21 Paul claims:
“For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law”
Paul would have known what God said in Deuteronomy 31 about how easy it is to obey the Law, and how obeying the law brought life and prosperity, a life pleasing to God:
‘Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ 14 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.
15 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.’
This passage from Deuteronomy proves that Paul taught in direct defiance of the teaching of the God of Israel and the God of Jesus. He was a false apostle.
LikeLike
Intellect – yes I agree, I too do not want Muslim children to be seduced into worshiping a man and if unrepented being thrown into Hell fire. But Ken does not care about Muslim children. He worships his idols called ‘Freedom of Speech’ and ‘The American Way.’ No one in the Jewish scriptures or the New Testament ever worshipped these deities.
Ken has truly been lead astray 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
I don’t know; there probably were not very many Muslims living in England or the colonies at those times. I would have to have more time to research that issue.
I say;
No Muslim or any religion lives in England at that time because, the Christians will not allow the other Christians to live by persecuting each other until the liberals took over power by force and allow for freedom of religion before other religion start to migrate to the west. That is why Spain got rid of all the Jews and Muslims by force converting, Killings and eventually driving the Jews and the Muslims all out of Spain. When the Muslims were leaving, the Jews left with them(Muslims) to Morocco, North Africa and other part of the Muslim world and they are there till today. Despite Israel bribing them with money to migrate to Israel, some of them still remain with their Muslim friends and brothers in their native lands and practicing their religion without fear or favour.
John Calvin, Martin Luther etc. persecuted and killed other Christians who does not share their view, and imagine if a Muslim is found in their country then? He would have been beheaded and executed immediately.
The Caliph Umar, after gaining the upper hand and Salahuddin, allow Christians, Jews and other religions and their places of worship to be protected and that ancient places of worship is still being used today in Palestine, but unfortunately Ken Temple and his evangelical Christians has contributed bull dozers to Israel to destroy some of the remaining Churches and Mosques that was protected by Muslims. Even the United Nations has asked Israel to stop encroaching the cultural heritage of the Holy Land but it refused and just 3 days ago and every now and then it will have incursion into the Holy places, and I think Jordan once recalled its ambassador and warns Israel to stop that red line it(Jordan) has set.
All these violence has root cause of Zionist and not all Jews are Zionists, but all evangelical Christians are Zionists including John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, Ken Tempe and the rest according to their Bible and it is violence and intolerance of other people to live. They turn to accuse Islam that allowed the 3 faith to live for centuries.
You said;
western secular government with traditional Judaeo Christian values is superior to Sharia law Islam with no evangelism or freedom to change religions
I say;
France has banned minaret and control and regulates Mosques and how and when Mosques are to be built and banned niqab- I do not fancy niqab either but that is how one choose to dress, and if one can be half naked with bikini and Miley Cirrus appearing a live TV with all her complete breasts exposed except a little piece of coverings on her nipples alone and is freedom to be half naked, then I think, niqab is better and should be allowed because it does cause sexual arousal like the half naked ladies in the west. Niqab is better than full naked breast that can cause arousal for some people but niqab is pure spiritual and religious. I do not support both either but favoured Hijab.
Quebec, Canada, has law against niqab, Yesterday some Australians demonstrated against the building of Mosques in Australia. US has witnessed the vandalising of many mosques and protest to built mosques.
This type of behaviour rarely happens in the Muslims majority country from the time of our prophet till today and the ancient and new Churches can be found in the Muslims majority countries and still being used today except the war that is destroying some of them. Muslims rarely vandalize or destroy Churches. Sometimes they do out of anger of US drone bombings on their family. It is out of anger because the Churches were there for centuries without them bothering about it.
Most problems in this world can find its roots cause from Ken Temples religion but they direct it to Islam.
Thanks
LikeLike
Western secular freedom of religion and freedom of speech, separation of church & state, basic human rights, etc. developed out of a Christian culture and traditions of about 1600-1700 years. The Deism of the Enlightenment was an attempt to hold on to Monotheism and Christian morality and ethics without the disagreements between Christian denominations. It was that core that influenced John Locke of England and others that influenced Jefferson and Franklin and that Deism wing of the American founding fathers. “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . . ” – this was based on Christian tradition of 1600 years.
On the other hand, Islam developed over it’s history after Medina to aggressive all out war against the Byzantine and West and Persia and Indian Hindus, Buddhists, etc.; the Caliphate with Sharia Law and Dhimmi system up until 1924, and after that, it was secular dictators who held the Islamists in check.
When the secular dictators fall in the Muslim world, chaos comes, and Islamists regimes like Iran can result. The so called “Arab spring” has resulted in a big chaos and mess.
Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia seem to have done better in their systems of government in recent history, but in the Middle East and North Africa, the situation is really bad. Libya (total breakdown and chaos), Syria and Iraq, and Nigeria (Boko Haram, etc.) and Somalia and the Sudan are not doing very well.
I don’t worship the American system of freedom of religion/ freedom of speech/ separation of church and state; but if it also holds to traditional Christian ethics and morality, it would be a superior system of government. Unfortunately, it is not holding on to its Christian ethics and morality these days: radical atheism, Darwinian Evolution, materialism, pornography, adultery, pre-marital sex, immodesty, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, no-genderism, political correctness are the fruits of modern secular government and culture in the west. The freedoms of the west are abused by these immoral things.
I worship the one true God, the Triune God of three persons. One God, three persons, the Father-God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, eternally generated Word, the one Lord and incarnated God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Genesis 1:1; Deut. 6:4; John 1:1-5; John 1:14-18; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 13:14; John 17:3; 1 Timothy 2:5
There is only one God, but the one God exists in three persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The One God has always been that way from all eternity. God is Love, relationship, Holy and Pure, Sovereign and All-Powerful, Good, all Wise.
The point about Galatians 5 is not freedom from the law, but freedom in the gospel from legalism – that obeying certain rituals and laws can earn you points with God. If people would “love their neighbors as themselves”, society would be better. Unfortunately, people are selfish and prideful by nature and corrupt by nature.
The apostle Paul was not against God’s law – He upheld it and established the law – Romans 3:31.
“Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be!! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Romans 3:31)
The apostle Paul clearly taught “the law of God is good, holy, and righteous”. Romans 7:12
God’s law was never meant as a system to earn eternal life. God’s law shows you that you are sinner because you cannot keep the law by your own power.
The main purpose of the law is to show you God’s holy and perfect standard and your own failures to keep it.
The Law condemns your heart, your secret evil motives, selfishness, lusts, internal anger, jealousies, hatred – the internal sins that no one sees; but God sees. The lack of love for neighbor or lack of loving God with all your heart and mind and soul.
Mark 7:20-23
20 And He 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.”
Jesus Al Masih exposed all of our evil hearts in Matthew 5:27-30 (sexual lust and fantasies send us all to hell) and 5:22-26 (anger and hatred sends us all to hell).
The only way to be rescued from hell is through repentance and faith in Jesus Al Masih. (Mark 1:15; Luke 13:1-5; Romans 3:21-28; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9)
The point of Deut. 30:11-20 (Not Deut. 31) is the Israelites were responsible to know the law and study it and obey. They couldn’t say “it’s too difficult to understand” or “it’s too far away, beyond the sea, etc.”; or “we didn’t know”. Even if you don’t know, God still holds you responsible on judgment day.
LikeLike
The apostle Paul did not teach that Jesus abolished the law, rather he taught that Jesus abolished the enmity of the law – those laws that cause hatred between cultures – food laws, circumcision, external rituals, holidays, etc. and Jesus fulfilled the law, He satisfied the wrath of God against sin by voluntarily taking that wrath upon Himself; the guilt and condemnation of the law – if you believe in Christ as Savior and Lord, He takes the curse of the law for you. You have to read and study the whole passage and context of Ephesians 2:11-22.
He is our peace, who takes away the hatred and enmity between cultures.
Ephesians 2:13-14 (see also the whole context of 2:11-22)
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [ if you are in Christ by repentant faith in Him]
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
There is hope only in Jesus Christ for the conflicts between black and white, Jews and Arabs, Japanese and Koreans, Turks and Greeks, Persians and Arabs, Indians and Pakistanis, Irish and English, etc.
LikeLike
Luke 19:27 is the last verse of a parable. A parable !! It is not a command to be carried out; rather it is symbolic of what will happen at the last judgment – hell. Hell is God’s justice against evil.
The rest of the verses you quoted are from the OT war contexts of Theocratic Israel, which are no longer applicable.
LikeLike
The essence of true freedom – the ability to forgive those who have hurt you – the only power that is available only through Jesus Christ and His atonement on the cross. Corrie Ten Boom was able to forgive her Nazi torturers, only through Christ (Isa Al Masih)
LikeLike
‘the ability to forgive those who have hurt you – the only power that is available only through Jesus Christ and His atonement on the cross’
– this is rubbish. People of many faiths and none at all forgive each other daily.
Ken you have been brainwashed.
LikeLike
‘Corrie Ten Boom was able to forgive her Nazi torturers, only through Christ’
And Muhammad was able to forgive his Meccan persecutors who tortured and killed his companions through the Grace of Allah.
Hind bint ‘Utbah had a spearman named Wahshi gouged out the liver of Muhammad’s uncle, Hamza, and took it to Hind. She bit into it then spat it out.
Did Muhammad forgive her? Yes!
LikeLike
Is there a specific verse on that? (In Qur’an and Hadith)
And why did he later get special revelations to attack the Meccan caravans and then later attack the pagan Meccans in all out war, after he got power in Medina?
LikeLike
“brainwashed” = a clean mind
I want to have a clean mind. Cleansing, purity, and holiness come only through Christ.
Ritual washing before your Salaat, physical Wudu (وضو ) cannot cleanse your heart, nor your mind.
LikeLike
lol wrong. Brainwashing is indoctrination. Fundamentalism has corrupted your brain and heart.
LikeLike
“indoctrination” – “in – doctrine – ation” – learning right doctrine. Yes.
You follow fundamentalist (basic doctrinal) Islam, so, that is not a good method of argumentation. Surah 29:46
LikeLike
I don’t follow fundamentalist Islam – don’t be a silly billy.
‘And why did he later get special revelations to attack the Meccan caravans and then later attack the pagan Meccans in all out war, after he got power in Medina?’
what ‘special revelations’ are these? Cite your references.
LikeLike
“Fundamental” = “foundational basis” and points to “basic doctrines, principles, beliefs” – so prove that you don’t follow basic Islam.
The information is in the Sira by Ibn Ishaq and Hisham; and it explains the “Asbab ol Nozul” (reasons for the revelation) for Quran 2:217, and Ibn Kathir provides commentary.
[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, “They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)
The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers. However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to:
[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425)
According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months:
The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir)
Faced with losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his hut and later emerged with a convenient and timely revelation “from Allah” that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use):
They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter (Qur’an 2:217)
LikeLike
I do not see you point Ken. Do you object to something?
LikeLike
“If you have killed in the sacred month, they have kept you back from the way of Allah with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people. This is a more serious matter with Allah than the killing of those of them whom you have slain. ‘And seduction is worse than killing.’ They used to seduce the Muslim in his religion until they made him return to unbelief after believing, and that is worse with Allah than killing.”
(The Sira of the Prophet, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426)
Muhammad sent his men to plunder caravans, which precipitated the Battle of Badr:
When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
LikeLike
He ordered the raiding of caravans, and it was in the sacred months, then later justified it with a new revelation, “fitneh (confusion, turmoil, seduction, rebellion) is worse than slaughter” in Surah 2:217
LikeLike
why was the raiding of caravans wrong? You need to explain this.
LikeLike
Is there a specific verse on that (of Muhammad’s forgiving Hind)? (In Qur’an and Hadith or Sira or Tarikh Al Tabari ?)
LikeLike
a critic says:
‘The Muslim sources also tell us that Muhammad sent some men out on a raid during a time when fighting would be prohibited. Muhammad’s men attacked a Meccan caravan at a time when the pagans expected to be safe, since it was the Arab custom to cease from hostilities and wars during the so-called sacred months. Thus, this premeditated attack on the caravan was an act of treachery and sacrilege in the eyes of the Arabs. Muhammad conveniently received a “revelation” justifying this act of treachery and bloodlust greed.’
Let us read what happened:
1. The Platoon of Nakhlah. It took place in Rajab 2 A.H., i.e. January 624 A.H. The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] despatched ‘Abdullah bin Jahsh Asadi to Nakhlah at the head of 12 Emigrants with six camels. ‘Abdullah was given a letter by the Prophet [pbuh] but was instructed to read it only after two days. He followed the instructions and discovered that he was asked to go on to a place called Nakhlah standing between Makkah and At-Ta’if, intercept a caravan for Quraish and collect news about their intentions. He disclosed the contents of the letters to his fellows who blindly obeyed the orders. At Nakhlah, the caravan passed carrying loads of raisins (dried grapes), food stuff and other commodities. Notable polytheists were also there such as ‘Amr bin Al-Hadrami, ‘Uthman and Naufal, sons of ‘Abdullah bin Al-Mugheerah and others… The Muslims held consultations among themselves with respect to fighting them taking into account Rajab which was a sacred month (during which, along with Dhul Hijja, Dhul Qa’da and Muharram, war activities were suspended as was the custom in Arabia then). At last they agreed to engage with them in fighting. ‘Amr bin Al-Hadrami was shot dead by an arrow, ‘Uthman and Al-Hakam were captured whereas Naufal escaped. They came back with the booty and the two prisoners. They set aside one-fifth of the booty assigned to Allâh and His Messenger, and took the rest. The Messenger disapproved of that act and suspended any action as regards the camels and the two captives on account of the prohibited months already mentioned. The polytheists, on their part, exploited this golden opportunity to calumniate the Muslims and accuse them of violating what is Divinely inviolable. This idle talk brought about a painful headache to Muhammad’s Companions, until at last they were relieved when the Revelation came down giving a decisive answer and stating quite explicitly that the behaviour of the polytheists in the whole process was much more heinous and far more serious than the act of the Muslims:
“They ask you concerning fighting in the sacred months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar). Say, ‘Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.” [Al-Qur’an 2:217]
The Words of Allâh were quite clear and said that the tumult created by the polytheists was groundless. The sacred inviolable sanctities had been repeatedly violated in the long process of fighting Islam and persecuting its adherents. The wealth of the Muslims as well as their homes had already been violated and their Prophet [pbuh] had been the target of repeated attempts on his life. In short, that sort of propaganda could deservedly be described as impudence and prostitution. This has been a resume of pre-Badr platoons and invasions. None of them witnessed any sort of looting property or killing people except when the polytheists had committed such crimes under the leadership of Karz bin Jabir Al-Fahri. It was, in fact, the polytheists who had initiated such acts. No wonder, for such ill-behaviour is immanent in their natural disposition.
Shortly afterwards, the two captives were released and blood money was given to the killed man’s father.[For details see Za’d Al-Ma’ad 2/83-85; Ibn Hisham 1/605; Rahmat-ul-lil’alameen 1/115, 2/468] (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar, Chapter: The Prophet On the Battlefield, Source)
Note the following points:
– The Prophet (peace be upon him) never ordered the Muslims to attack during the sacred time period.
– The Prophet (peace be upon him) eventually released the captives and paid blood money to the victims father. This was done in recognition of the Muslim soldiers fault and that it wasn’t the intention of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for that to happen.
– It wasn’t the Muslims who instigated this whole ordeal, the Meccans continuously tried to harass the Muslims and tried to have the Prophet (peace be upon him) killed even after he migrated from Medina and left the Meccans alone. This has been proven over here http://call-to-monotheism.com/did_the_muslims_instigate_the_battle_of_badr__a_rebuttal_to_david_wood
LikeLike
attacking in violence, killing, and stealing – violations of several of the 10 commandments.
LikeLike
re Hind – just google it.
LikeLike
I did, and looked around, and read, but there is no text on Muhammad forgiving her.
LikeLike
‘attacking in violence, killing, and stealing – violations of several of the 10 commandments.’
Oh yes – you are quite right Ken. How clever and insightful you are.
So we must be pacifists and never fight in a just war. We must condemn God and the israelites for committing genocide and mass murder (see 1 Samuel 15 and numerous other places). There must be no capital punishment – that is killing and violent too.
We must condemn Jesus because of his many acts of violence in the OT, gospels, and book of Revelation.
Nice one Ken. You just became a heretic and unbeliever!
LikeLike
try harder Ken. Look it up in books.
LikeLike
Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: “The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder” (Bukhari, AbuDawood). His injunction is: “The loot is no more lawful than the carrion” (AbuDawood). AbuBakr Siddeeq used to tell soldiers on their way to war: “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.”
Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated. (Syed Abul A’la Maudoodi, Rights Of Enemies In War, Source)
Relations between Mecca and Medina rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara.) Meccans confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in Mecca. In Medina, Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and mutual help with neighboring tribes.
Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Caravan raiding was an old Arabian tradition; later Muslim apologists justified the raids by the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims. Secular scholars will add that this was a matter of survival for the Muslims as well. They owned no land in Medina and if they did not raid, they would have to live on charity and whatever wage labor they could find. (Source: wikipedia)
Taken from http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_ali_sina_s_article__looting_
LikeLike
always a justification and with many special new and convenient revelations. Aisha even said, “how Allah hastens to fulfill your desire” (with a new revelation)
It doesn’t pass the smell test.
LikeLike
There is nothing in the gospels or NT about making war on unbelievers, etc. (unlike Islam – Qur’an 9:5; 9:28-33)
The just war at the end of time is the justice that Jesus will do – judgment day. Revelation 19-20
“He makes war with justice and righteousness” Revelation 19:11
LikeLike
“Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated. (Syed Abul A’la Maudoodi, Rights Of Enemies In War, Source)”
Does that include land?
LikeLike
This looks good. Just got it and am starting to read it.
http://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Answer-Accusation-Biblical-Falsification/dp/1505723205
LikeLike
Ken Temple: always a justification and with many special new and convenient revelations. Aisha even said, “how Allah hastens to fulfill your desire” (with a new revelation)
Speaking of convient revelations, why weren’t there any allowing Muhammad to forgo fasting, praying and participating in wars? Muhammad (saw) would fast continuously without food or water something the average Muslim wasn’t allowed to do; he would sleep little and spend entire nights in worship and supplication until his feet were swollen, something which can take a great physical and mental toll on the average person; he actively participated in wars and sustained life threatening injuries. None of these were easy things so the claim that revelations were convenient for Muhammad doesn’t hold up. Even on his deathbed, he mustered all he had to join the congregation in prayer for one last time. That doesn’t sound like an insincere person making stuff up along the way.
Try harder troll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Knack – excellent points
LikeLike
Paul is there anywhere to read the constitution in full?
LikeLike
Yes many places. Just google it
LikeLike
Hi Ken
Sorry if you have already answered this i apologize. You mentioned that the reason for the values of America were due to judeo-christian values. However if i am not mistaken there were also influences from the enlightment or humanism that arose out of the renaissance in Italy. Is there any evidence to back up your claim?
Apologies again this comment section is massive!
LikeLike
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
KT//There is nothing in the gospels or NT about making war on unbelievers, etc. (unlike Islam – Qur’an 9:5; 9:28-33)
The just war at the end of time is the justice that Jesus will do – judgment day. Revelation 19-20
“He makes war with justice and righteousness” Revelation 19:11//
The context of holy Qur’an 9:5; 9:28-33 is about just war self and self defence.
You seems to COMPLETELY ignore the Old Testament genocidal instruction on unbelievers as obsolete, this is interesting , it is clear you don’t have foundation for your belief just choose and pick what you like.
Obviously Revelation 19:11-21 describes Jesus as making war on unbelievers just like Islam but more bloody…
12 HIS EYES ARE LIKE A FLAME OF FIRE, and on his head are omany diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in qa robe dipped IN BLOOD,
The birds will EAT the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). HE HAS NO COMPASSION UPON HIS ENEMIES, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “FIERY LAKE OF BURNING SULFUR” (v. 20).
So even if your ditch the Old Testament , the NT still portray Jesus as a merciless warlord when he return. Leading a jihad agains the unbeliever.
Another NT passage confirms that Jesus has no mercy toward his enemies
Luke 19:27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and SLAUGHTER THEM in my presence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes indeed Jesus was the God of the Old Testament making him the cause of the multiple genocides.
At least Ken thinks so.
LikeLike
Patrice,
Yes, the Renaissance in Europe grew out of a Christian tradition context, as did the Enlightenment – the Deism of say John Locke in England was the most influential on Jefferson, Franklin, and the founding fathers of USA – they did not go the French Revolution way of atheism and total rejection of God and church (Rousseau, Voltaire), but the Deism party kept Monotheism along with Christian morality and ethics – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (based on Genesis 1-2, Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28) and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . . ” (USA Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, influenced by John Locke of England). The other main party of the founding fathers were evangelicals – Witherspoon, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry).
the first amendment of the constitution – freedom of speech, religion, etc. and separation of government out of the church (no state church, as in Europe), was the result of wanting to keep Monotheism, Christian morality, and to keep Christian denominations and sects from persecuting one another, as they had been doing in Europe since the Reformation.
LikeLike
The Old Testament passages on war were for Theocratic Israel. Theocratic Biblical Israel ceased to exist in 70 AD. The Pharisees and Jewish leaders rejected the Messiah Jesus. Modern Zionist Israel is not Biblical Israel because they do not even believe in the God of their forefathers. The covenant promises are only for those in covenant relationship with God. Relationship with the true God is only through Jesus the Messiah. (But Israel does have the right to defend themselves against Hamas and Hezbollah)
Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel – Matthew 21:43-45
Jesus is building His church among all nations and peoples and languages (Rev. 5:9, Matthew 16:16-18; 28:18-20) and churches do not have state government authority. That is clear in the NT.
The NT abrogates that aspect of the OT.
Surah 9:5 and 9:29-33 is not just war or self-defense. Attacking the Byzantine Empire or the Persian Empire (under Umar, the second Caliph and onward in history) was not self-defense or just.
LikeLike
Ken are you now denying that Jesus is God??
LikeLike
No; how do you say that?
LikeLike
The Word – the Son always existed in spirit as the second person of the Trinity. (John 1:1-5; John 17:5)
When the Word became flesh (John 1:14), He became Jesus the man, in the womb of Mary, (Luke 1:34-35)
and also still being God at the same time, the divine nature taking on a human nature (Phil. 2:5-8)
LikeLike
So that’s a yes then.
So Jesus was incredibly violent in the OT period. Ordering the slaughter of innocent women, children and babies, (see just one notoriously bloodthirsty example in 1 Samuel 15) something Muhammad never did of course.
LikeLike
Bismillah
//Surah 9:5 and 9:29-33 is not just war or self-defense. Attacking the Byzantine Empire or the Persian Empire (under Umar, the second Caliph and onward in history) was not self-defense or just.//
This is pure speculation. History shows otherwise The muslim army was seen as liberators, historian Thomas Arnold conclude:
‘Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country. [*]
Check:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/129
[*]T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 114(129).
He also wrote
“In view of the toleration thus extended to their Christian subjects in the early period of the Muslim rule, the common hypothesis of the sword as the factor of conversion seems hardly satisfactory, and we are compelled to seek for other motives than that of persecution”
Source:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/75
So objective historian agree that aggression is not a factor for Islam early expansion, as many islamophobes happy to point out.
For example In Syria, the Muslims were in fact seen as liberators from the Roman/Byzantine tyranny. As far as the Syrian Christians were concerned, the Muslims were carrying out a just war to fight oppression no aggression. The population it conquer preferred the muslims over the oppressive Byzantine.
No wonder christians voluntarily became muslims in the holy land and its surrounding en masse
//The NT abrogates that aspect of the OT.//
the gospel according to ken, it is stated nowhere.
While Surah 9:5 and 9:29-33 is just war or self-defense and has well defined limits , your god (i.e. jesus according to your trinitarian understanding) in OT has committed horrendous atrocities including smashing innocent baby skulls and animals and plants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul,
Don’t you see the change from OT Theocracy in the OT to the NT church in the NT?
Jesus also said: Matthew 5:38-48 “the you have heard it said” – He is clearly pointing to the OT tradition and understanding and giving the new laws of love for the NT church.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ (Quoting from the Torah – Exodus 21:24; Deuteronomy 19:21)
39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ (“hate your enemy” is natural to human beings, but Jesus rebukes that attitude)
44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Also, how do you explain the clear teaching of Jesus that He takes away the kingdom of God from Israel, in Matthew 21:43-45?
Also, after Jesus is raised from the dead, the disciples ask, “are you now going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Acts 1:6 – Obviously, the disciples understood that the kingdom was taken away from Israel, and they are still thinking in terms of political and military authority and power.
But Jesus says, basically, “No, it is not for you to know about the future, but rather, the kind of authority I am giving you is not military nor political, but a spiritual kingdom with spiritual authority to witness (Evangelism) and spiritual power to live holy and good lives.” (Acts 1:6-8; Acts 4:31; Galatians 5:13-26; Ephesians 5:18; Romans 8:12-17)
LikeLike
thanks for the sermon Ken. Your preaching is besides the point. To repeat:
So Jesus was incredibly violent in the OT period. Ordering the slaughter of innocent women, children and babies, (see just one notoriously bloodthirsty example in 1 Samuel 15) something Muhammad never did of course.
LikeLike
The common narrative that the Monophysites (Copts and Syrian-Jacobite Mia-physites) “welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators against the Byzantine Chalcedonians” is being challenged as revisionist history and not so simple as that.
https://books.google.com/books?id=FD_GCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=How+the+Christians+saw+the+Arab+invasions&source=bl&ots=PgL3jY0BBr&sig=LtLUfjWtD7VLKsRKMjQmwkZCrRY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCDgUahUKEwidhtDJ87_IAhXEdz4KHbn8Bc8#v=onepage&q=How%20the%20Christians%20saw%20the%20Arab%20invasions&f=false
LikeLike
Paul,
You are just ignoring the clear change of the NT against that war-land aspect of the OT.
Hebrews 4, 11, 12, 13 interpret the promised land as a type and symbol of heaven.
LikeLike
Ken do you admit now that your Jesus had an earlier career as a bloodthirsty genocidal killer?
LikeLike
Scholar Robert Hoyland also challenges the view that the Copts and Syrian Miaphysites welcomed the Arabs as liberators.
https://books.google.com/books?id=sEbHAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Robert+Hoyland&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAWoVChMIhfKl6YHAyAIVxlw-Ch0vlgDx#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Hoyland&f=false
Even so, liberation was NOT the motivation of attacking that Surah 9:5 and 9:29 say. In 9:29, the Qur’an says it was because they do not believe in Allah (because of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity) and they don’t forbid the things that the Allah of Islam forbids (like pork, wine, praying to icons and statues (which the Christians were starting to do – to Jesus and Mary – which Protestants disagree with.)
LikeLike
No, God is always just and all wars in the OT by Israel in Joshua, 1 Sam. 15, were just wars.
God has the right to send people to hell. Hell is God’s justice.
But the NT does not give permission for the church to do any violence or wars at all. That is why the western Christian traditions changed that from the OT Theocracy.
Islam rejected the peace and love and grace in Al Masih in the true Injeel, the NT, not even knowing about it at all (except for the word Injeel, and hearing that Jesus was Al Masih and “the Word of God” and born of the virgin Mary and did miracles); and went back to the OT Theocracy and violence and wars, but even worse, you have no inspiration of your text ( it is a dry, uninspired, legalistic law system with not much mercy, and no real peace, and no assurance of forgiveness or promise of eternal life) and you have no Holy Spirit to give you power to obey the law or overcome the spirit of vengeance and anger and pride that is so prevalent in the human nature, and in the modern Islamists / Jihadist movements.
LikeLike
Ken
a question: did your Jesus order the killing of children and babies by the sword?
yes or no
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
No, God is always just and all wars in the OT by Israel in Joshua, 1 Sam. 15, were just wars.
God has the right to send people to hell. Hell is God’s justice.
But the NT does not give permission for the church to do any violence or wars at all. That is why the western Christian traditions changed that from the OT Theocracy.
Islam rejected the peace and love and grace in Al Masih in the true Injeel, the NT, not even knowing about it at all (except for the word Injeel, and hearing that Jesus was Al Masih and “the Word of God” and born of the virgin Mary and did miracles); and went back to the OT Theocracy and violence and wars, but even worse, you have no inspiration of your text ( it is a dry, uninspired, legalistic law system with not much mercy, and no real peace, and no assurance of forgiveness or promise of eternal life) and you have no Holy Spirit to give you power to obey the law or overcome the spirit of vengeance and anger and pride that is so prevalent in the human nature, and in the modern Islamists / Jihadist movements.
I say;
Quran
Verse (4:36) – English Translation
Sahih International:
Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.
“By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer.” It was asked, “Who is that, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “One whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil”. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
“He will not enter Heaven whose neighbor is not secure from his wrongful conduct”.
“He who believes in Allah and the Last Day let him not harm his neighbor” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
Source;
https://www.facebook.com/notes/islam/moral-virtues-in-the-words-of-prophet-muhammad-sal-allahu-alaihi-wa-sallam/210345328980128
My good friend Ken Temple, any religion in the world including idol worshipers, voodoos in Haiti, Hindus, African Traditional region etc. have the good and sweet words you have been quoting from NT and attributing it to the liberal West as false Judeo-Christian values-which has a lot of genocidal verses by Jesus Christ when he was Son before changing himself and adding man to himself to make him hybrid God-Man. In the NT Jesus was no gentle at all because he called people names like Dog, turning tables and vandalising places of worship and insulting Pharisees and saying;
Luke 19:27
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.
Why did Jesus not go to war:
-He is under the Romans and had no power to go to war with any one
-His followers are less than the Romans and the Jews who are not his followers
-He has no one under his control i.e. women, Children, sick, elderly, property, farmland etc.
-His ministry was short as compared to Prophet, Moses, Mohammed and many who went to an inevitable war because whatever you do, you will have enemy and it would have been wicked for the Almighty God to asks Moses, Mohammed and other prophets to “turn their cheeks” for others to finish them i.e. rape their women, kill their brothers, burn their houses etc. like how they did to Muslims in Mecca, when the Muslims were not strong.
-So, it will be easy for Jesus to preach “turn the other cheek” because he has no one to care for. Others have people to care for. I will never turn my to any one because that command is not from God but from men like Ken Temple in order to make their God credible. Ken Temple himself will not sit down and witness his relation being raped and turn his other cheek for the rapist. I swear he(Ken Temple) will violate and disobey this stupid “turn your other cheek” when someone start to beat him up with dirty slaps and hitting his little daughter or son with metal.
“Turn the other cheek” is stupid command and not from God Almighty but from men who are NT writers without proper documentation with their full names, their places of birth, their relation with Jesus, date etc. Such a document which consists of NT is unacceptable.
It is unphilosophical, intellectual bankruptcy to compare Jesus whose ministry is short and has no one to take care of, and is under control and has no power to Moses, Mohammed and other prophets who have population, property, weak, elderly, sick, babies, homes etc. to control.
Ken Temple, you see we also have good verses that said respect your neighbour including Christians, other non Muslims, Jews and the rest. Islam went ahead to praise some Christians who are God fearing and asks Muslims to follow the examples of such pure people. Islam allows a Muslim to marry a Christian and said there are good men among them and some of them are closer to us.
It is intellectual dishonesty for a leaned person like Ken Temple to ignore all these and brand Islam as enemy to civilization and to Christians but his Christians persecuted Muslims and Jews and there is no where in the Bible that said non Christians will be saved by his God.
War is inevitable in human society, because you may not want war, but someone want war and may strike you, just like how evangelical Christians supported Bush to go to war in Iran and now trying to go to war in Iran. Iran has a right to its peaceful nuclear like Japan, Canada, US etc. but Netanyahu, and the Christians are saying no, the will halt that at all cost. That is declaration of war with Iran, because nobody can stop Canada or Japan or US with their nuclear.
In Moses and Mohammed peace be upon them, the disbelievers are always threatening them so that “turn your cheek” in the NT will be stupid and rubbish to them and the Almighty gave prophet Mohammed the rule of war, which is absent from the Bible except genocide in the Bible.
Guarantee to heaven?
You must be joking Ken. Since when have you been to heaven with pictures of you swimming with angels? You believe, just like every religion believe they will go to heaven. Believe is not guarantee if you are a philosopher or even not a philosopher, believing something is not guaranteed. So Christians saying they are guaranteed heaven is childish and the blood of Jesus could not save Christians from sinning everyday and they do sin and so how could it send them to heaven?
Guarantee is when you went to heaven and back with some high resolution picture that cannot be found on this earth with angels swimming with you and God the Son blessing you, then the other God the Father watching the blessings from his throne and the other God the HS coming out from your body like how Jesus cast the demons spirit from people.
In Islam, God is the final Judge, no matter how guarantee we are, we give due respect to the Almighty God and say InshaAllah we will go to heaven. Muslims are indeed guaranteed heaven and every religion has guaranteed to but not Christians alone.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Even so, liberation was NOT the motivation of attacking that Surah 9:5 and 9:29 say. In 9:29, the Qur’an says it was because they do not believe in Allah (because of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity) and they don’t forbid the things that the Allah of Islam forbids (like pork, wine, praying to icons and statues (which the Christians were starting to do – to Jesus and Mary – which Protestants disagree with.
I say;
Muslims were attacked and killed by Pagan Arabs, Mongols, Christians and now other nations are attacking Muslims majority countries. Your favourite sura 9 is about how Muslims should fight them wen they attacked them. They must follow the rule of war according to the same sura.
Ken, no where in the Quran or hadith that said “attack non Muslims first and force convert them” as you keep preaching. The sura 9 is about war, when Muslims are attacked and when their enemies keep violating their the treaty they made with them.
In the same sura, God said, if any of the opposing side seek protection, then it is incumbent on Muslims to guide and sent him to a proper place, he may hear the word of Allah. He may voluntarily hear the word of Allah but not force and no one can force anyone because Allah did not use force there.;
If Allah had wanted any war force conversion, He would have said, “force the word of Allah on him” like how the Christians force converted Muslim slave from Africa all of them were Christians until the freedom of religion.
No one taught Islam the freedom of religion because it was enshrined in the religion by default.
Ken Temple
You said;
(because of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity) and they don’t forbid the things that the Allah of Islam forbids (like pork, wine, praying to icons and statues (which the Christians were starting to do – to Jesus and Mary – which Protestants disagree with.
I say;
Any one can see that believing God Almighty came and entered into the womb of a woman Himself were is reserved for babies alone to receive their nourishment from the umbilical cord that connects it to the woman is more sinful than worshiping Mary.
Protestants are no different because they all worship man. You discriminate against women, by saying a man can be worshiped by a woman cannot be worshiped,. Jesus also discriminated women by coming as a man alone. He should have be haemophrodite or she-he to run away from the discrimination. He should have been ethnicity less than being an ethnic Jew to discriminate all of us. I want a sincere God to appear at my time and in my ethnicity to be unbiased. Rastafarians have got their Trinitarian black Haile Selaissie I and some Indians and other tribes have got their incarnated God in response to Trinity and incarnation and there is no where in the Bible does it say “Trinity is limited to Jesus alone”. No where. Show me a clear message about that because it is salvation so it must be clear like this
2.”there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
3.”Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
4.”Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
5.”See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
1.”Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
5.”See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
5.”See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
5.”See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
5.”See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
5.”See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
Yahweh clearly said HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE
HE HE HE HE HE HE HE is the only God and No one No one No one No one No one besides Him.
So, if Yahweh has other persons besides Him, why is He denying them? saying He alone is He.
Unless the persons in Trinity are not He. Any person is He and Jesus is He because He(Jesus) said your God and my God, so Jesus and Holy Spirit are not God according to the Bible and this verse. You worship them at your peril.
Thanks
LikeLike
It is trolls like Ken Temple that convinced me of the futility of online Christian-Muslim debates and that my time is better spent reading academic books and journals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
Paul,
Don’t you see the change from OT Theocracy in the OT to the NT church in the NT?
Jesus also said: Matthew 5:38-48 “the you have heard it said” – He is clearly pointing to the OT tradition and understanding and giving the new laws of love for the NT church.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ (Quoting from the Torah – Exodus 21:24; Deuteronomy 19:21)
39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ (“hate your enemy” is natural to human beings, but Jesus rebukes that attitude)
44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Also, how do you explain the clear teaching of Jesus that He takes away the kingdom of God from Israel, in Matthew 21:43-45?
I say;
All the above are nonsense and rubbish with all due respect Sir.
Why?
The question is when your enemy attacks you and start to destroy and burn your house and rape your relations, will you turn the other cheek and apply the love of Jesus and stay without struggling to fight him off? if you can?
Besides all religions have these sweet talks but not NT or Christianity alone and even in the Old Testament you could have similar passages as the above but there are also violent ones without limitations or control.
It is only Islam that has limitation and control when it come to war and self defence and it means Islam is from God because, yes, God will not let us sit and be harmed by others but to defend ourselves against any attacking person, but limits and control how we can handle the person. That is a just God. Instead the OT has violent verses without limitations and control but according Ken, Jesus said sit without doing any thing and let your sister be raped by and enemy. So many Christians will not agree with Ken on this one. Robert Wells will not follow the above laws by Jesus quoted by Ken to allow his younger sister to be raped and not do anything knowing very well he could have beat up the enemy to prevent that.
Robert and other Christians will not follow the NT commands above if being attacked, they will fight those who fight them as the Quran clearly stated.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken
a question: did your Jesus order the killing of children and babies by the sword?
yes or no
LikeLike
With the name of Allah
//The common narrative that the Monophysites (Copts and Syrian-Jacobite Mia-physites) “welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators against the Byzantine Chalcedonians” is being challenged as revisionist history and not so simple as that.//
Do you bother to read the link you give? or do you have comprehension problem?
On the contrary to your claim that Islam conquest seen as liberation as revisionist history, Michael Penn argue that syriacs sources suggest that early christians encounters with early muslims have more positive christian depiction of Islam than of most western sources. UNDER MUSLIMS RULE, SYRIAC CHURCHES EXPANDED TO FORM THE MOST GEOGRAPHICALLY EXTENSIVE BRANCH OF CHRISTAINITY THE LATE ANCIENT AND EARLY MEDIEVAL WORLD HAD EVER SEEN..
(Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World By Michael Philip Pen, Introduction p3)
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=EMvMCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Michael+Penn+syriac+islam&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMIh52G2P_AyAIVT56OCh085Q7O#v=onepage&q=Michael%20Penn%20syriac%20islam&f=false
So Islam early war did help christian of middle east to grow against greek and latin christians.
##########
//Don’t you see the change from OT Theocracy in the OT to the NT church in the NT?//
I don’t get what you mean. Fact is your god (i.e. jesus according to your trinitarian understanding) in OT has committed and ordered genocide including smashing innocent baby skulls and animals and plants, whatever you mean with theocracy mumbo jumbo don’t have any bearing to the horrendous atrocities of the action.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect that Ken is willfully misunderstanding our point Eric.
LikeLike
@ Br. Paul,
Maybe.
Or maybe because he believe in something confusing i.e. god which is three but it means one…god become man still but god etc.. so whatever comes from him must be pretty confusing too
We ask simple question : Is god (i.e. jesus according to his trinitarian understanding) in OT has committed and ordered genocide including smashing innocent baby skulls and animals and plants?
His only straightforward answer so far seems to be : “There was change from OT Theocracy in the OT to the NT church in the NT”
My guess is he try to say that god (ie. Jesus according to him) was wrong (in committing such horrendous atrocities) but god then changed course, so it is ok now.
LikeLike
Yes Eric that makes sense. From being a killer of children and babies in the OT Jesus undergoes a radical change in nature and becomes very loving and merciful in the gospels (love you enemies do good to those who hate and persecute you etc). But then he had another radical change in nature in the book of Revelation where he reverts to killing on an industrial scale again.
No more Mr Nice Guy.
LikeLike
Brothers Eric/Paul Williams
According to Ken Temple
a. In the OT Jesus commanded the act of genocide and allowed babies, women, non combatants, animals etc. to be killed
b. Jesus changed his mind later and commanded his followers to sit down and not defend themselves and let their enemies rape, kill, torture, destroy the properties etc. of their(Jesus followers) relatives, dependants, population and then after that “turn the other cheek” for this enemy
c. Jesus also changed his mind again when he comes back and continue the genocide he started in the OT in an industrial scale
All abc are wicked and does not fit the Judeo-Christian values in the USA that Ken want us to believe.
Ken Temple disobeyed the Bible when he said God became man and changed from son without the man part by adding the man part in the womb of Mary.
Numbers 23:19New
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows
Psalm 102:27
But you remain the same, and your years will never end
Habakkuk 1:12
LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.
I still respect Ken Temple because by far, he is the only Christian who constantly interact with Muslims. I do not know if he has seen the truth in Islam than in Christianity by now. Hope more Christians reading this blog add their input, for this is only a brainstorming to provide the clear truth and you can say Islam is not true as Ken is saying with his reason.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken has gone very quiet…
LikeLike
The Allah of Islam is Sovereign also, and when babies die or people are killed by hurricanes and floods, or cancer, etc. – God did it.
God has the right, and He did nothing wrong. We have no rights to complain against Him, even though it is understandable that we struggle with that issue.
John Piper answers your question here. I agree.
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-made-it-ok-for-god-to-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testament
The difference Piper explains (which I have also been explaining to you) is that God commanded Joshua and Samuel to do those things because it was a theocracy at that time, but there is no more theocracy today.
The Church has never had that command or right to do.
Islam is more like OT Theocracy. If you get the Caliphate back (or like IS is claiming), the Caliph has the authority to call for all out war against the west, Israel, idol worshipping Hindus, pagan Buddhists, atheist secularists and communists, etc. Your system is still in force for today, as the Jihadists and Islamists (Muslim terrorists like Al Qaedah, Boko Haram, IS, Al Shabbab, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) are claiming.
We (Christians, the Church) do not have that (theocratic authority to do what Joshua and Samuel did) today.
But when Al Masih comes again, He has the right to make just war against all who have not repented and trusted in the Son.
“kiss and worship the Son, lest He become angry and you perish in the way.” Psalm 2:1-12 (verse 12)
LikeLike
I am quiet sometimes because I have a life and other work and family to attend to.
LikeLike
Ken
a question: did your Jesus order the killing of children and babies by the sword?
yes or no
LikeLike
“turn the other cheek” means don’t take vengeance into your own hands for yourself. No honor killing or bitterness or revenge.
But, it does not mean you watch an evil person rape or hurt your wife or daughter. Then the husband has every right to stop and subdue or even kill the man trying to hurt his family, if the guy won’t stop. That’s why in the USA we have the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms – in order to defend against evil people.
LikeLike
Ken you have been asked a question by three people on this thread. Will you be so kind to give us all a reply?
LikeLike
Paul,
You didn’t watch the video ? God, the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit, who existed from all eternity past) ordered Joshua and Samuel to do those things, yes.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
LikeLike
You are touchy Ken.
No I did not watch the video. I wanted an answer from you.
LikeLike
Watch it; I agree with Piper. God ordered it, yes. (God is and has always been from eternity past – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.)
LikeLike
The question was did Jesus order the killing of children and babies. You admit he did.
Muhammad never did anything like that!
LikeLike
The video is only 5 minutes and 36 seconds. I have actually ordered whole liberal books and spent money on your recommendations, (James D. G. Dunn, Raymond Brown, Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes etc.) – and read a lot of it. I even ordered another book by Dunn, “Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels” – (David Wood quoted extensively from this in his debate with Shabir Ally, and proved that Jesus and Paul taught the same thing and there is no difference in their teachings.)
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Paul-Gospels-James-D-G/dp/080286645X
You don’t seem to read or think sincerely about the conservative believing view. You only care about liberal views that tear down the Bible. But the Qur’an affirms the Bible totally. Surah 5:47; 10:94
LikeLike
Ken, let’s get back to Jesus.
He ordered the slaughter of babies in the OT, taught love and peace in the gospels, and reverted to type in the last book of the Bible.
I find the disturbing behaviour. Such extreme changes of character would suggest an unpredictable and disturbed personality.
LikeLike
Muhammad approved of ALL of the OT and the NT because of what he said that they are Scripture inspired by God and guidance and light. Period. full stop.
ouch !!
LikeLike
There is nothing in the Qur’an that says the text of the OT or the NT was corrupted.
LikeLike
Watch and listen to at least the 25- 28 minute mark.
David Wood’s quote of James D. G. Dunn, in his book, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels was very devastating to Shabir Ally’s argumentation and also Paul Bilal Williams, who used James D. G. Dunn a lot at his blogs which he has changed 3 times over the past few years.
The quote comes a little after the 25 minute mark. The book Wood quotes from is from 2011.
“Here it becomes obvious that Paul was able to differentiate within the law . He maintains that some laws, here the law of circumcision no longer counted, but in the same breathe he reasserts the importance of keeping the law of God.
Does this not remind us of Jesus? . . .
Paul drew his attitude to the law from Jesus, no other explanation makes such sense of the evidence available to us. It was Jesus’ teaching and example which showed him that in Christ neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision but faith operating effectively through love. [Galatians 5:6] It was no doubt this teaching and that example that Paul had in mind when he speaks of “the law of Christ”.
Dunn concludes:
“Should we then speak of a gulf between Jesus and Paul? NO!
Should we deduce that Paul departed from or corrupted the good news which Jesus brought? No!
Should we conclude that Paul transformed Jesus’ message into something that Jesus Himself would not recognize? No! . . . ”
Jesus’ discriminating attitude to the law and the love command . . . ” (David Wood ran out of time at that point)
LikeLike
This is a very good, peaceful discussion – James White and Imam Muhammad Musri
about The Bible:
about the Qur’an
LikeLike
Ken you going wildly off topic.
LikeLike
Ken the silly idea that Islam endorse the bible as the inspired word of God is refuted here: Does Islam Endorse The Bible ?
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
LikeLike
At least Imam Muhammad Musri is respectful to Dr. White and listens to him. They both had a great discussion, and you should not just dismiss him.
I commend all the about 3 videos to Muslims – Shabir Ally and Muhammad Musri get equal time, and it is respectful to each side.
Every topic between Muslims and Christians comes down to the issues that they discuss.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Allah of Islam is Sovereign also, and when babies die or people are killed by hurricanes and floods, or cancer, etc. – God did it.
God has the right, and He did nothing wrong. We have no rights to complain against Him, even though it is understandable that we struggle with that issue.
John Piper answers your question here. I agree.
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-made-it-ok-for-god-to-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testament
The difference Piper explains (which I have also been explaining to you) is that God commanded Joshua and Samuel to do those things because it was a theocracy at that time, but there is no more theocracy today.
The Church has never had that command or right to do.
Islam is more like OT Theocracy. If you get the Caliphate back (or like IS is claiming), the Caliph has the authority to call for all out war against the west, Israel, idol worshipping Hindus, pagan Buddhists, atheist secularists and communists, etc. Your system is still in force for today, as the Jihadists and Islamists (Muslim terrorists like Al Qaedah, Boko Haram, IS, Al Shabbab, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) are claiming.
We (Christians, the Church) do not have that (theocratic authority to do what Joshua and Samuel did) today.
But when Al Masih comes again, He has the right to make just war against all who have not repented and trusted in the Son.
“kiss and worship the Son, lest He become angry and you perish in the way.” Psalm 2:1-12 (verse 12)
I say;
Theocracy? The Catholics were persecuting the protestants -Christian theocracy
The Protestants were persecuting the Catholics- Christian theocracy
No religion is allowed in the Christian dominated world with Martin Luther, Richard the Lion heart of England, Calvin, Pope of the Catholics are all theocratic by not allowing other religions except their brand of Christianity alone and that is theocracy.
This Christian theocracy continue exist until the liberals, secularist, agnostic, atheist, etc. fought back to be able to overpower and overcame all the Christians and brought secular constitution, rule of law and freedom of religion before other religions started to migrate into the Christians dominated countries to stop their theocratic rule.
The Christian theocracy was stopped by force by the secularists and it even triggered the liberal north of the US and the Conservative south who want a conservative theocratic rule but the liberal north refused and won the battle-I mean war to bring freedom of religion and rule of law. It can be seen clearly now where the conservative evangelical Christians of the south wants all law to conform with the Bible by the liberal north and the democratic party, does care about the welfare of everyone and not Christians alone.
It means, had the conservatives had their full ways all Biblical rules they deem possible could have its way in the rule i.e. abortion, gay marriage, restriction or banning the building of Mosques as can be seen in so many states in the US where Mosques has been vandalized and protest against building Mosques by Christians.
Now, the evangelical Christians are supporting the theocratic state of Israel to destroy Churches, homes, farmlands, babies etc. to pave way for Jewish only settlements and it is a big theocracy. You can call Israel the way you want but it is a clear theocratic state, that use its roots from religion and establishing the settlements of religious people against the natives who comprises of native Jews, native Christians and native Muslims all of whom are being persecuted by the evangelical Christians to establish a theocratic rule.
You said;
We (Christians, the Church) do not have that (theocratic authority to do what Joshua and Samuel did) today.
But when Al Masih comes again, He has the right to make just war against all who have not repented and trusted in the Son.
“kiss and worship the Son, lest He become angry and you perish in the way.” Psalm 2:1-12 (verse 12)
I say;
With all due respect, we do not argue like this Mr. Ken. That is not a wise thing to say in a dialogue. To say whoever you believe has the right to do what you are accusing others(war) is absurd and disingenuous. That is not argument but insult. If you feel war is not good, then it should be applicable to all be it Jesus or Mohammed. To justify Jesus’s war and vilified Allah’s war is intellectual dishonesty. All war and any war is war.
If theocracy is not good, Jesus did it in the past with Joshua, now doing it in Israel with the massacre of Palestinians and will do theocracy in the future when he(Jesus) returns.
So, if theocracy is bad and you want to be sincere, it is Jesus you have to blame because he did it in the past, still doing it now in Israel, and will be doing it when he returns.
You said;
The Allah of Islam is Sovereign also, and when babies die or people are killed by hurricanes and floods, or cancer, etc. – God did it.
God has the right, and He did nothing wrong. We have no rights to complain against Him, even though it is understandable that we struggle with that issue.
I say;
But you complained against somebody’s God and accused that God for allowing people to be killed and in fact that is what most Christians do-to accuse Islam and not mention their atrocities-that is bad and hypocritical.
You said;
“turn the other cheek” means don’t take vengeance into your own hands for yourself. No honor killing or bitterness or revenge.
But, it does not mean you watch an evil person rape or hurt your wife or daughter. Then the husband has every right to stop and subdue or even kill the man trying to hurt his family, if the guy won’t stop. That’s why in the USA we have the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms – in order to defend against evil people.
I say;
So there should be nothing wrong when Muslims were commanded “fight those who fight you”, “stop fighting them, if they stop fighting you” and sura 9 which has all these rules does not merit Christians attack.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Theocracy? The Catholics were persecuting the protestants -Christian theocracy.
True it was in the past, but no more.
The Protestants were persecuting the Catholics- Christian theocracy
Once the Medieval Synthesis of European Roman Catholic culture started to unwind, Europe became a mess with the religious wars. But that culture of war and persecution of heretics was inherited from the Roman Catholic understanding of church, since Theodosius (380-392 AD), Justinian (527-565 AD) and Heraclius (610-641 AD) But it was not part of original Christianity in the NT nor in the early centuries.
No religion is allowed in the Christian dominated world with Martin Luther, Richard the Lion heart of England, Calvin, Pope of the Catholics are all theocratic by not allowing other religions except their brand of Christianity alone and that is theocracy.
You use incorrect verbs. Let me help you:
No religion was allowed in the Christian dominated world with Martin Luther, Richard the Lion heart of England, Calvin, Pope of the Catholics were all theocratic by not allowing other religions except their brand of Christianity alone and that was theocracy. Except Jewish ghettos did exist, but it is true that they were mistreated and that was very bad and very wrong and we admit that that was a great sin by the Europeans, in the past.
This Christian theocracy continue exist until the liberals, secularist, agnostic, atheist, etc. fought back to be able to overpower and overcame all the Christians and brought secular constitution, rule of law and freedom of religion before other religions started to migrate into the Christians dominated countries to stop their theocratic rule.
Not totally accurate. This is better.
This Christian theocracy continued to exist until the Anabaptists (1500s – today – Mennonites, Amish, others) and Baptists (1600s to today) movements objected; later, the Quakers, etc. and then later the Enlightenment movement birthed Deism, which sought to keep Monotheism and Christian morality and ethics, but keep Christian denominations from persecuting one another.
With the passing of time, the combination of Deism and the Anabaptists, Baptists, Quakers, Evangelicals, etc. brought the idea of Monotheism, Christian ethics and morality with the freedom of religion and US constitution that still supported Christian morality and Monotheism and Christians ethics, with freedom for Jews and other religions. Later liberals, secularist, agnostic, atheist, and recently, other religions by immigration (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism ) etc. grew in western culture since that time among the people and freedom of thought. Eastern religions only became “cool” in the west by the Beatles in the 1960s when they went to India and discovered it. George Harrison became a Hare Krishna and rejected his own Roman Catholic upbringing. John Lennon experimented with it for a short time but eventually rejected the Hinduism and Hare Krishna and the Maharishi Yogi and even made fun of him.
Immigration has allowed more and more westerners to be exposed to other religions – true.
LikeLike
A lot of your rant about the US North and South and Israel is a mixture of your own misunderstanding.
The South was wrong to perpetuate slavery of blacks and I admit that. I am a southerner, and am ashamed of that past. It was evil and wrong. My ancestors were poor and did not have slaves. Only about 1/3 of the South owned slaves, and a small minority of them mistreated them. Many were part of the family and were like indentured servants. I am not justifying that, just saying the reality. But you need to realize that there was no theocracy at all. That had already been done away long ago in Europe and even when they were colonies under Britain in US, there was no theocracy.
You also have to realize that even those southerners who, in the 1800s, justified keeping Black slavery agreed that the slave trade of the Portuguese, Spanish and British who kidnapped Africans in Africa and brought them to the colonies 100-200 years earlier was evil and wrong.
Israel today is not a Theocracy – most are secular agnostics and atheists and bitter over Hitler’s Holocaust and all the evil that the Europeans did to them that led up to Hitler’s evil. The religious Jews are a minority in Israel today.
LikeLike
With all due respect, we do not argue like this Mr. Ken. That is not a wise thing to say in a dialogue. To say whoever you believe has the right to do what you are accusing others(war) is absurd and disingenuous. That is not argument but insult. If you feel war is not good, then it should be applicable to all be it Jesus or Mohammed. To justify Jesus’s war and vilified Allah’s war is intellectual dishonesty. All war and any war is war.
I honestly don’t understand this. There is such a thing as just war. The Allies fighting the Nazis and Mussolini in Italy and Japanese in World War 2 was a just war.
When Al Masih returns at the end of time, He will wage just war.
But the Muslims attack of Byzantine and Persia was NOT just, because they were doing it to expand and spread Islam and they attacked first; the Byzantines and Persians were not attacking into Arabia. Abu Bakr and Umar and Uthman and all Caliphate after that was wrong and unjust. Surah 9 is wrong and unjust.
other verses in the Qur’an “fight those who attack you first” is understandable. But that is not what Surah 9 teaches. Surah 9 teaches all out aggressive war to spread Islam.
LikeLike
Also, it was the Evangelicals who fought against the African slave trade in Britain – William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp(who also wrote Greek Grammatical rules for the NT and discovered the rule named after him that proved the Deity of Christ in several passages), John Newton (former slave trader, who God converted out of that sin; and who wrote Amazing Grace), along with others.
http://www.desiringgod.org/books/amazing-grace-in-the-life-of-william-wilberforce
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
other verses in the Qur’an “fight those who attack you first” is understandable. But that is not what Surah 9 teaches. Surah 9 teaches all out aggressive war to spread Islam
I say;
There is nothing in the Quran that says or teaches “all out aggressive war to spread Islam”. Please provide us with this otherwise you lied against Islam and must repent.
Sura 9 said “if a non Muslims seek your protection, lead him to a safe place”, “Except those who honour their treaty with you and does not help anyone to attack you, fight those who do not honour their treaty with you and help others to attack you” be it Christian, Jew, Pagans etc. There is an exception clearly spelt on those who Muslims should fight. Christian missionaries will miss that one and attack sura 9.
You said;
Also, it was the Evangelicals who fought against the African slave trade in Britain – William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp(who also wrote Greek Grammatical rules for the NT and discovered the rule named after him that proved the Deity of Christ in several passages), John Newton (former slave trader, who God converted out of that sin; and who wrote Amazing Grace), along with others.
http://www.desiringgod.org/books/amazing-grace-in-the-life-of-william-wilberforce
I say;
There are Christians who support gay marriage today and that does not mean Christianity as a whole supports gay marriages. Yes, there are some Christians who help to stop slavery, but Christianity as a whole and the Bible and Jesus supports slavery and prophet Abraham gave birth with his slave girl and Jesus Christi supported that act and said any slave must serve his master.
I your liberal west today both prophets Jesus and Abraham would have been arrested for the act of slavery. So stop accusing Islam alone, and if you want to be honest you must include Jesus Christ and condemn him(Jesus) when it comes to theocracy.
Be respectful to condemn Jesus theocracy at the time of Joshua and now in Israel because peoples homes are being demolished to pave way for religious group and that is theocracy whether you call it secular or what. Also condemn Jesus Christ when he comes back and introduce theocracy if you want to be a honest person.
You said;
I honestly don’t understand this. There is such a thing as just war. The Allies fighting the Nazis and Mussolini in Italy and Japanese in World War 2 was a just war.
When Al Masih returns at the end of time, He will wage just war.
But the Muslims attack of Byzantine and Persia was NOT just, because they were doing it to expand and spread Islam and they attacked first; the Byzantines and Persians were not attacking into Arabia. Abu Bakr and Umar and Uthman and all Caliphate after that was wrong and unjust. Surah 9 is wrong and unjust.
I say;
It is intellectual dishonest on your part to call your war a “just war” and insult somebody’s way as wrong war. The Mongols attacked and kill Muslims, the Byzantines killed Muslims first and kill Muslim messengers as well and Muslims have to defend themselves and will not sit down for their enemies to finish them up.
When Jesus comes back he will attack those who will not follow him and that is not a just war but theocratic war and if you are honest you will condemn Jesus as you condemn Islam. Without condemning Jesus makes you a dishonest person for his war of theocracy in Joshua’s time, now in Israel and when he returns.
Thanks
LikeLike
There are Christians who support gay marriage today . . .
No; they are not true Christians; or they are confused and inconsistent and need Biblical teaching and thinking.
Surah 9 is all out war and the Byzantines and Persia did not attack into Arabia. The Mongols did up in Central Asia and Baghdad, but the Byzantines or Persians did not.
Surah 9 is unjust and evil.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
There are Christians who support gay marriage today . . .
No; they are not true Christians; or they are confused and inconsistent and need Biblical teaching and thinking.
Surah 9 is all out war and the Byzantines and Persia did not attack into Arabia. The Mongols did up in Central Asia and Baghdad, but the Byzantines or Persians did not.
Surah 9 is unjust and evil.
I say;
Killing babies, women, children, animals and commanded by Your Lord God Jesus Christ is unjust evil and satanic and done by a God who stays in a womb of a woman for 9 months is just a blaspheme by anyone who believed God died.
My God does not change and is not a man according to the Bible and the womb of a woman reserved for babies does not befit the God of the Bible.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
There are Christians who support gay marriage today . . .
I say;
This makes you a theocrat yourself, for calling Christian who do not agree with you as non Christians. Had it not been the freedom of religion forced on you by the north, you would have persecuted the Christian gay marriage supporters.
A theocrat like you must not must hypocritical condemn theocracy which your lord Jesus Christ did at Joshua’s time, now doing in Israel and will do theocracy when he(Jesus) returns.
Thanks
LikeLike
No; I don’t persecute them; but they would be excommunicated if they claim to be Christians and try to spread heresy in the church. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
No; I don’t persecute them; but they would be excommunicated if they claim to be Christians and try to spread heresy in the church. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
I say;
From history, Christians did not spare those who do not share their ideology including themselves, until forced to stop that by liberals and Ken will always concoct stories to make his side looks better but will always accuse others.
That is what you will say today because you are falsely accusing Islam on what Christianity did, are doing now, and will do in the future i.e. theocracy, persecution and force conversion.
Ken Temple will concoct his own history as follows;
/////////////////////////////////////////
Theocracy? The Catholics were persecuting the protestants -Christian theocracy.
True it was in the past, but no more.
The Protestants were persecuting the Catholics- Christian theocracy
Once the Medieval Synthesis of European Roman Catholic culture started to unwind, Europe became a mess with the religious wars. But that culture of war and persecution of heretics was inherited from the Roman Catholic understanding of church, since Theodosius (380-392 AD), Justinian (527-565 AD) and Heraclius (610-641 AD) But it was not part of original Christianity in the NT nor in the early centuries.
/////////////////////////////////////////
to make Catholics look bad but Protestants good. We all knew from history Christianity in general were theocrats and did not allow any religion to practice including themselves until the liberals fought them and won.
Thanks
LikeLike
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
Temple (=missionary/Islamphobes)’s line of reasoning
################
Missionary: Islam is wrong for permitting war against pagans and unbelievers under strict rules
Muslim: But the bible shows that god order genocides with no restrictions to cruelty which include smashing baby skulls and exterminating animal and plants
Missionary: Well God (ie. Jesus) can do whatever He likes including committing such horrendous atrocities, it was a theocratic system after all.. but now God changed course, turn the other cheek
Muslim: But how can smashing baby skulls and exterminating animal and plants can be JUST and MERCIFUL?
Missionary: But God did it. He did nothing wrong. We have no rights to complain against Him
Muslim: But how can you say that Islam is is wrong for God permitting war against pagans and unbelievers under strict rules like don’t kill the weak (women, children) don’t mutilate bodies etc. to bring people to back to monotheism and to live obeying God’s law?
Missionary: Because Islam is more like OT Theocracy.
Muslim: But you said Under Theocracy, it was God’s sovereignty for doing wars no matter cruel.
Missionary: Yeah but God changed course no more theocracy now
Muslim: so anybody can choose whatever belief they like and do against God’s will?
Missionary: No, God (i.e. Jesus) will come to earth again and MAKE WAR against all who don’t believe in God has son and have not repented.
Muslim: But you said it is wrong for making war against pagans and unbelievers ?
################
Well Temple, do you believe muslims will buy this non-sense..?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliant Eric!!
LikeLike
Temple://Muhammad approved of ALL of the OT and the NT because of what he said that they are Scripture inspired by God and guidance and light. Period. full stop.//
Really? prophet Muhammad approved ALL of the OT and the NT because of what he said that they are Scripture inspired by God.
Can you quote from sound hadith? please enlighten me..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric
You said;
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
Temple (=missionary/Islamphobes)’s line of reasoning
################
Missionary: Islam is wrong for permitting war against pagans and unbelievers under strict rules
Muslim: But the bible shows that god order genocides with no restrictions to cruelty which include smashing baby skulls and exterminating animal and plants
Missionary: Well God (ie. Jesus) can do whatever He likes including committing such horrendous atrocities, it was a theocratic system after all.. but now God changed course, turn the other cheek
Muslim: But how can smashing baby skulls and exterminating animal and plants can be JUST and MERCIFUL?
Missionary: But God did it. He did nothing wrong. We have no rights to complain against Him
Muslim: But how can you say that Islam is is wrong for God permitting war against pagans and unbelievers under strict rules like don’t kill the weak (women, children) don’t mutilate bodies etc. to bring people to back to monotheism and to live obeying God’s law?
Missionary: Because Islam is more like OT Theocracy.
Muslim: But you said Under Theocracy, it was God’s sovereignty for doing wars no matter cruel.
Missionary: Yeah but God changed course no more theocracy now
Muslim: so anybody can choose whatever belief they like and do against God’s will?
Missionary: No, God (i.e. Jesus) will come to earth again and MAKE WAR against all who don’t believe in God has son and have not repented.
Muslim: But you said it is wrong for making war against pagans and unbelievers ?
################
Well Temple, do you believe muslims will buy this non-sense..?
I say;
Ken Temple is more of a theocrat, than the Islam he is accusing of. Such creatures/people are dangerous for this world with all due respect to Ken. He Ken and his Christians will do something or even worse thing but will not see anything wrong about that and think his God has the right to do that but accused somebody’s God for doing the same or even lesser thing that his(Ken Temple) God did, is doing and will do in the future.
Such people like Ken Temple are the troubles of this world but will try to turn it on Islam. This is a person Ken Temple and most evangelical Christians are like him doing worse things but do not see any problem with that but to accuse others about same of lesser thing. I swear people like Ken Temple are the problem of this world because he will not apply the same criteria of accusing others to himself-he feels superior with his dead, dead and buried God, than the Muslims God of the Bible who do not die according to this verse;
///////////////
Habakkuk 1:12
LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.
////////////////
The attitude of Ken here has shown the intolerance of Christianity in the past had it not been the liberals who stopped them, they would have conquered the whole world and turn it into Christian theocracy, but they are now doing it indirectly by attacking Muslims majority countries and spreading their gospels but they failed to convert more Muslims-they might have converted fewer like 10 or 20 with all these killings, money, wasted time and resources.
He accuses Catholics for worshipping virgin Mary because she is a human but Ken Temple worships Jesus-a man. Hypocrisy
Ken, the Bible said God is not a man so you erred.
Ken Temple believes God stayed in the womb of a woman by implanting or introducing Himself like in vitro fertilization and has seen nothing wrong with that. That is even worse to think about God than bowing to virgin Mary in whose womb God stayed for 9 months. Catholics have every right to bow to virgin Mary if Ken Temple thinks God stayed in her womb. After all her womb is a sacred place. Ken must not object to that, because he does not make sense to object people bowing to where God stayed.
He accuses Islam of theocracy, but Ken Temple’s God was a theocratic God in the past, now a theocratic God in In Israel destroying farmlands of the Palestinians for a religious people and Ken supports that, Jesus will come back and wage war against those who do not support him but Ken will hypocritical and falsely attack Islam that did not force convert anyone. WICKED A HYPOCRISY AND BAD FOR GOOD DIALOG TO ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT ON THE SAME THING THAT YOU ARE DOING AND SUPPORTING i.e. THEOCRACY IN ISRAEL TODAY, THEOCRACY WHEN YOU WERE PERSECUTING THE CATHOLICS AND THEOCRACY WHEN YOUR JESUS RETURNS. Too bad.
If you live in a glass house do not throw stones.
Thanks
LikeLike
Don’t you guys also believe that Jesus and Al Mahdi will come at the end of time and make war against all injustice?
What is the difference between the Sunni belief of Al Mahdi and the Shi’a version of the Al Mahdi?
LikeLike
Really? prophet Muhammad approved ALL of the OT and the NT because of what he said that they are Scripture inspired by God.
Yes,
The Qur’an teaches that all of OT and NT are Scripture and no where does it say the text تحریف النص or تحریف المتن or تحریف اللفظ was tampered with:
Surah 5:47 (wider context, 5:42-48)
Surah 5:65-68
Surah 10:94
Surah 29:46-47
Surah 3:84
No one can change the Words of Allah:
Surah 6:34
Surah 6:116
Surah 10:65
Surah 18:27
LikeLike
I do not believe in theocracy. You are wrong. The theocracy of Israel ended in 70 AD and there has never been a valid one since, nor ever shall be until judgment day after Jesus returns.
LikeLike
Surah 2:190 is understandable as self-defense, and ok, “attack those who attack you first, and do not be an aggressor”
but Surah 9 does not say that. Surah 9 is all out war against pagans (9:1-14) and then against Christians and Jews (9:28-33); and Umar and all the Caliphs after him in Islamic history continued that warfare to spread Islam. That was wrong.
LikeLike
Ken you have a weird distorted reading of the Holy Quran. I put it down to your incorrigible Christian fundamentalism.
Btw please do not list the surah numbers without actually quoting them. It is a courtesy to actually cite the passages you claim substantiate your point. I certainly will not be bothering to look up 10 references.
Don’t be lazy.
LikeLike
then it is you who are lazy.
LikeLike
Paul,
You have a weird distorted reading of the Bible. I put it down to your incorrigible Muslim fundamentalism.
LikeLike
lol i could list dozens of Biblical references to prove you wrong – without actualy quoting a single one of them – but I won’t be following your unhelpful example
LikeLike
ok, these prove at the time of Muhammad and the Qur’an, the Qur’an speaks as if there is no textual change in the previous Scriptures.
وقفينا على اثارهم بعيسى ابن مريم مصدقا لما بين يديه من التوراة واتيناه الانجيل فيه هدى ونور ومصدقا لما بين يديه من التوراة وهدى وموعظة للمتقين
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.
وليحكم اهل الانجيل بما انزل الله فيه ومن لم يحكم بما انزل الله فاولئك هم الفاسقون
And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.
Surah 5:46-47 (Sahih International)
———–
فان كنت في شك مما انزلنا اليك فاسال الذين يقرءون الكتاب من قبلك لقد جاءك الحق من ربك فلا تكونن من الممترين
So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.
Surah 10:94
ولا تجادلوا اهل الكتاب الا بالتي هي احسن الا الذين ظلموا منهم وقولوا امنا بالذي انزل الينا وانزل اليكم والهنا والهكم واحد ونحن له مسلمون
And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.”
Surah 29:46
Surah 6:34 – “No one can change the words of Allah”
لا مبدل لكلمات الله
ولقد كذبت رسل من قبلك فصبروا على ما كذبوا واوذوا حتى اتاهم نصرنا ولا مبدل لكلمات الله ولقد جاءك من نبا المرسلين
(same basic phrase in 6:115; 10:64; 18:27) (some English versions have different verse numbers)
Surah 10:64 =
لهم البشرى في الحياة الدنيا وفي الاخرة لا تبديل لكلمات الله ذلك هو الفوز العظيم
لا تبديل لكلمات الله
“there is no change of the words of Allah”
LikeLike
Lol none of these prove Muhammad thought the same way as you about the Bible.
LikeLike
He didn’t know what it really said; but he affirmed it all.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah
Tempe, I am asking you again where is the hadith of prophet Muhammad or in the Qur’an where it says that he approved “ALL of the OT and the NT “??
I know all of those verses, of course we believe that the revelation to Moses and Jesus and all prophets of God came from God…. but it says nothing of العهد القديم OT or العَهْدُ الجَدِيد NT, nothing about four gospels الأناجيل الأربعة nothing about acts of apostle أعمال الرسل nothing about Pauls letters رسائل بولس
those were written by human hands and anonymous therefore not scripture from God .
You failed and therefore you lied.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Surah 2:190 is understandable as self-defense, and ok, “attack those who attack you first, and do not be an aggressor”
but Surah 9 does not say that. Surah 9 is all out war against pagans (9:1-14) and then against Christians and Jews (9:28-33); and Umar and all the Caliphs after him in Islamic history continued that warfare to spread Islam. That was wrong.
I say;
Mr. Ken, you did not say the truth here. Sura 9 clearly said exactly what sura 2:190 said and it is verse 4 and it has clearly excepted who the Muslims should not fight and who they should fight and is below read it. Christian missionaries will ignore that truth. You lied for not providing the full verses but only (9:1-140)
Sura 9:4
Sahih International
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].
Ken, the above verse from sura 9 of Allah praises the non Muslims and asks Muslims not to fight them, but Christian missionaries like you will ignore it and I remember I and brother Eric and others explained this to you over and over but you refuse to accept it.
EXCEPT, EXCEPTED, EXCEPTED, EXCEPTED, EXCEPT, EXCEPTED, EXCEPTED, EXCEPTED, EXCEPT, EXCEPTED, EXCEPTED, EXCEPTED,
Ken, don’t you understand excepted. There is clearly an exception of the non Muslims, who Muslims must not fight and it is clearly spelt in sura 9.
You said;
Don’t you guys also believe that Jesus and Al Mahdi will come at the end of time and make war against all injustice?
What is the difference between the Sunni belief of Al Mahdi and the Shi’a version of the Al Mahdi?
I say;
Jesus will rule by religious decree when he comes and that is theocracy. What we are saying is that be truthful and consistent to condemn Jesus as well, because he ruled in theocracy in the past and is ruling theocracy in Israel right now by allowing you(Ken Temple) to support Israel with Church contribution to destroy Palestinian livelihood, houses, Churches and Mosques for religious settlements and also Jesus will rule with religion when he comes back. Charity begins at home, so insult Jesus theocratic rule first before insulting others theocratic rule.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Muhammad was ignorant of what the Injeel was – he did not know about the Epistles of Paul or Peter or Revelation or the book of Acts, or that the true Al Injeel of Jesus included those 4 documents that were actually written by 4 writers – 2 disciples/eyewitness(Matthew and John), one secretary of a eyewitness(Mark for Peter), and one who interviewed Mary and the other eyewitnesses(Luke) and the other 27 books of the NT; but they were ALL already Holy inspired Scripture for 500 + years. They were God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) at the time they were written, between 45-96 AD.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah
KT://Muhammad was ignorant of what the Injeel was – he did not know about the Epistles of Paul or Peter or Revelation or the book of Acts, or that the true Al Injeel of Jesus included those 4 documents that were actually written by 4 writers//
Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not ignorant. He received the revelation from God , not from greek or latin trinitarians thats why no record from him that he ever associated the Injeel of Prophet Isa Al Masih to Paul, or four gospels and others writings.
Thats why the Quran criticise Trinitarianism so vehemently. Al Injeelu Isa -Al Masih the Qur’an refer to is NOT the Epistles of Paul or Peter or Revelation or the book of Acts, or 4 gospels. As is accepted by pretty much all of scholarship by now, Moses (p) and Jesus (p) most definitely had little to do with the current “OT” or “NT”. Those man-made writings was of uncertain origin that, at various points in time, ended up mistakenly thought of as scripture from God.
The Qur’an charges against the scripture in the possession of those who DISTORTED IT (like the greek NT and all greek materials from unknown authorship) , then claim it as the original words of God.
أَفَتَطْمَعُونَ أَن يُؤْمِنُوا لَكُمْ وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيقٌ مِّنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِن بَعْدِ مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
“Do you really hope that they will believe for you even though a group of from them used to hear the words of God then CORRUPTED it (يُحَرِّفُونَهُ) after understanding it, while they were knowing?” (Qur’an 2:75)
The Qur’an is clear that there were people who wrote the book with their own hand then claim that “this is from God”. Thats why we muslims do not believe OT and NT as Words of God
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
“So woe to those who write the book with their own hands and say, ‘This is from God’, so that they may trade it for a small gain, woe to them for what they write with their hands, and woe to them for what they earn!” (Qur’an 2:79)
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
KT: //Don’t you guys also believe that Jesus and Al Mahdi will come at the end of time and make war against all injustice?//
Exactly our point was , like other prophets , Jesus never downplayed military jihad. he encouraged living by the sword. In Luke 22 Jesus told his disciples to buy a SWORD in the first place., why would anyone buy a sword in those days unless for battle ?…. even at the cost of their own clothing…nothing metaphorical about this, just very urgent call to fight!
In Luke 19:27 Jesus said: “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and SLAUGHTER THEM in my presence”
But since OT and NT has been distorted thats why we read odd things with regard to violences like smashing baby skulls for no apparent reason. or that prophet did incest etc.
The Quran call to fight were actually a defense against attack with restrictions verses surrounding it, while in the Bible, you find genocide and total annihilation.
Those biblical passages echoes through Christian history and used for example, in American history the legitimation to kill Indians, and you are violating God’s law if you do not.
Also during the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the christians declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be UTTERLY destroyed.
LikeLike
You said;
Muhammad was ignorant of what the Injeel was – he did not know about the Epistles of Paul or Peter or Revelation or the book of Acts, or that the true Al Injeel of Jesus included those 4 documents that were actually written by 4 writers – 2 disciples/eyewitness(Matthew and John), one secretary of a eyewitness(Mark for Peter), and one who interviewed Mary and the other eyewitnesses(Luke) and the other 27 books of the NT; but they were ALL already Holy inspired Scripture for 500 + years. They were God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) at the time they were written, between 45-96 AD.
I say;
Was NT eye witness or inspiration? NT can’t be both. An eye witness is an eye witness and inspiration is an inspiration. If a human witness something and he is writing it, it cannot be inspiration but what he witness.
NT is not properly documented document, because it has no full names, place the writer came from, his association with Jesus, an optional date, where it was written, It is not speaking in first person to indicate it is an eye witness, “according to” added to it makes it a dubious document, etc.
Such document like NT is of a dubious origin because it did not identify who wrote it and Christians have to convene councils upon councils to decide the NT canon and reject other gospels.
There are other gospels like gospel of Thomas which the Fathers rejected and has similar stories in the Quran, so there could be other lost gospels that did not make it or find its way into the current NT but was with the Christians at the time of our prophet.
THE NT IS NOT EYE WITNESS OR GOD BREATHED BUT THE CHURCH FATHERS BREATHED BECAUSE AT THE FINAL ANALYSIS THE FATHERS DECIDED WHICH STORIES OF JESUS MUST BE SELECTED NOT GOD AND LEFT SO MANY IN THE PROCESS. THE FATHERS DID NOT SAY THEY WERE EYE WITNESS OR GOD BREATHED THEIR SELECTION. SO THE GOSPELS THE FATHERS REJECTED IS THE TRUE STORIES OF JESUS CHRIST AND THAT, TOGETHER WITH SOME STORIES IN NT IS THE TRUE INJEEL BUT NOT NT
QURAN MENTIONED INJEEL NOT NEW TESTAMENT BECAUSE PAUL IS NOT THE APOSTLE OF JESUS BUT ONLY SAW HIM IN VISION.
The Quran is talking about the whole stories of Jesus Christ and that was the injeel it was talking about but not the current Bible which was selected from among so many stories of Jesus by men and rejected others.
Proof
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Ken!
You Say:
Muhammad was ignorant of what the Injeel was – he did not know about the Epistles of Paul or Peter or Revelation or the book of Acts, or that the true Al Injeel of Jesus included those 4 documents that were actually written by 4 writers.
I Say:
I think the general Muslim response to this is that in the Qur’an what is referred to as the Torah and the Gospel is not the books of scripture such as Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke but rather the revelation given to Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh). The revelation given to Moses could have been say the commandments on Mt Sinai like the ones on the stone tablet. With that being said however I do recall an interview that Paul had put up a long while ago wherein he got a chance to speak with Professor Muhammad Abdel Haleem on such matters and he had stated that the Torah was in fact the same as the one the Jewish people had in their hands, i.e. the scriptures of the Tanakh, he did though carefully point out that the Gospel of Jesus is not so easily identified as much had been lost to history. I am not entirely sure though why he makes this distinction based on the relevant texts. But then again I don’t have the expertise that he does so until proven otherwise I will defer to his better judgement.
You Say:
2 disciples/eyewitness(Matthew and John), one secretary of a eyewitness(Mark for Peter), and one who interviewed Mary and the other eyewitnesses(Luke) and the other 27 books of the NT.
I Say:
The claim that the Gospels were written by their namesakes has largely been rejected by New Testament scholars opting rather that the Gospels were written by anonymous writers. This is why scholars have had to develop other methods to acertain what traditions within the Gospels can be accurately traced to Jesus (pbuh) and what is the result of the advances in early Christian theology, perhaps when the movement became less centered upon Judaism and more of an independent religion of which I am not altogether certain was Jesus’ (pbuh) intention. However I am more than willing to change my mind if there are good reasons to do so.
You Say:
They were God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) at the time they were written, between 45-96 AD.
I Say:
The reference to 2 Timothy is not referencing the New Testament as it would not be officially canonised until the 4th century if I am not mistaken. Rather it is referring to the Tanakh which in verse 15 is reffered to as the scripture which the audience had learned since childhood. Furthermore the dates you added at the end for when the New Testament documents were written is also largely rejected by New Testament scholars as the earliest document of the NT is the 1st letter of Paul to the Thessalonians which is said to most likely have been written in the 50s – 60s and the final document of the NT which was finished being 2 Peter sometime in the early second century. Also the Gospel of John may have been written later than 90 CE perhaps right at the tale end of the first century. Once again I am open to correction if there are good reasons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Patrice,
Thanks for your comments and contributions to our discussion!
I think the general Muslim response to this is that in the Qur’an what is referred to as the Torah and the Gospel is not the books of scripture such as Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke but rather the revelation given to Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh).
Since you have to admit that Muhammad could not read or write (Qur’an, Surah 7:157), he was ignorant of what the written books/ scrolls were. He is just hearing things from all kinds of Jews in and around Medina, and the apocryphal gospels in Arabia and various pseudo-Christian sects (some of the stuff in the Qur’an is from Gnostic gospels and legends, like the Legend of the seven sleepers and infancy gospel of Thomas), and the more orthodox ones up in Palestine and Syria at that time, when he traveled up there on the caravan trade routes. Since these books/ scrolls were already established for centuries, especially the OT (Protestants OT is the same as the Jews = TaNakh (Torah, Nabi’im – Prophets, and Khetovim = writings ktb, cognate with ketab کتاب – you just don’t have evidence that these are corrupted and changed and Muhammad gets everything straight from Allah in revelation, hundreds of miles away in a different language. Then there is the famous Hadith where he says he agrees with the written TaNakh of the Jews, as they put the book on a pillow. The same books of the OT then are the same as now, and established by the Jews 430 years before Christ. At that time, they were in scrolls rolled up. Chronicles and Malachi being the last ones written at the time of Artaxerxes, king of Persia in 430 BC. The last book in the TaNakh is Chronicles by the Jews. Malachi was in the section of the Nabi’im, the prophets, and the 12th in the scroll of the Twelve. ( 12 minor prophets.) Books had not be invented yet, in the form we have them now in spread out sheets with a tie or later, with a binding, they were individual scrolls rolled up until the mid second century to the 3rd century (150-250 AD).
Since the Qur’an also says, “the book”, and the people of the book, and “we believe in the Scriptures/ writings/books that were revealed before”, this shows that at the time of Muhammad, they understood him and the Qur’an to be talking about the written books in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).
The revelation given to Moses could have been say the commandments on Mt Sinai like the ones on the stone tablet. With that being said however I do recall an interview that Paul had put up a long while ago wherein he got a chance to speak with Professor Muhammad Abdel Haleem on such matters and he had stated that the Torah was in fact the same as the one the Jewish people had in their hands, i.e. the scriptures of the Tanakh, he did though carefully point out that the Gospel of Jesus is not so easily identified as much had been lost to history. I am not entirely sure though why he makes this distinction based on the relevant texts. But then again I don’t have the expertise that he does so until proven otherwise I will defer to his better judgement.
Paul Bilal Williams in an article (no longer there; as he changed his web-sites several times over the past few years) where he says he talked to Professor Muhammad Abdel Haleem – he admits that the Qur’an never says that the text النص or متن الکتاب has been corrupted. What was corrupted was the meaning of the text تحریف المعانی or تحریف المعنا , not the text itself. That is what Surah 3:78 is saying, “there is a party of them that distort the meaning with their tongues”; it does not say that the text of the written text was corrupted.
LikeLike
The claim that the Gospels were written by their namesakes has largely been rejected by New Testament scholars opting rather that the Gospels were written by anonymous writers. This is why scholars have had to develop other methods to acertain what traditions within the Gospels can be accurately traced to Jesus (pbuh) and what is the result of the advances in early Christian theology, perhaps when the movement became less centered upon Judaism and more of an independent religion of which I am not altogether certain was Jesus’ (pbuh) intention. However I am more than willing to change my mind if there are good reasons to do so.
Liberal scholars reject the NT as written by the apostles, etc.; BUT conservative believing scholars do not.
Many liberal scholars reject that the gospels were written by the actual person with their names attached to them. But there are believing scholars (those that have faith in God and Christ and trust all the NT as “God-breathed” ( 2 Tim. 3:16) that don’t agree with them. You guys always leave them out. You have the advantage in that sense, because the west gives freedom to criticize and be agnostic and skeptics and atheists scholars and liberal scholars who don’t believe in miracles or revelation or prophetic ministry. That seems inconsistent because you would want me to use your conservative scholars who actually believe in the text of the Qur’an as revelation, etc.
But even some of the liberal ones (liberal in some areas, more conservative in other areas) such as Martin Hengel – he did a lot of study and showed that “kata Matthaion” (according to Matthew) and “kata Markon” and “kata Lukan” (accroding to Luke) and “kata Yowannan” (according to John) were original to the manuscripts. Paul Williams and Shabir Ally use Hengel on other issues, but ignore him on this issue.
Jesus said “the words that You (the Father) gave Me, I have given to the disciples” (John 17:8) ; and He said that when the Holy Spirit comes, He will lead you all (the disciples) into all the truth and that the Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that Jesus taught them, and that He would also guide them in new revelation (John 14:26; 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:12-15) “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” (John 16:12) points to all the things in their future letters, including revelation given to the apostle Paul, would be included and written down.
The reference to 2 Timothy is not referencing the New Testament as it would not be officially canonised until the 4th century if I am not mistaken.
2 Timothy was the last letter/book written by the apostle Paul around 65-67 AD, before he was executed by Nero. that means it includes other NT books both that were alread written (most every book in the NT was written by then, and Paul quoted from Luke and Matthew in 1 Tim. 5:18, equating the gospels with the Torah as Scripture. 2 Tim. 3:15 refers to the OT, yes; but Paul expands it to include all the NT in principle by the phrase, “All Scripture is God-breathed”, meaning, not only the OT / TaNakh, but the Gospels and letters also. (NT) Galatians was the first NT written around 49-50 AD, before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, but Mark could have also been written around that time, with a range from 45-60 AD.
Every NT book was already written down by 96 AD, if the Gospel of John, the 3 letters of John, the book of Revelation, and the book of Jude was written between 80-96 AD. They were inspired and God-breathed when they were written. Tertullian and Irenaeus were quoting and/or alluding to most of them by 180-200 AD. Justin Martyr was using the gospels and using John 1:1 and 1:14 – Jesus as the eternal logos/word in 155 AD. They were individual scrolls then, up until 150-250 AD – there was no such thing as a book as we know books today in the first and second century century.
Rather it is referring to the Tanakh which in verse 15 is reffered to as the scripture which the audience had learned since childhood.
Agreed for verse 15, but Paul expands it to “all Scripture” in verse 16, since in his first letter to Tim. ( 1 Tim. 5:18), he quotes from the Torah and the gospels and puts them both as “Scripture”.
Furthermore the dates you added at the end for when the New Testament documents were written is also largely rejected by New Testament scholars as the earliest document of the NT is the 1st letter of Paul to the Thessalonians which is said to most likely have been written in the 50s – 60s and the final document of the NT which was finished being 2 Peter sometime in the early second century. Also the Gospel of John may have been written later than 90 CE perhaps right at the tale end of the first century. Once again I am open to correction if there are good reasons.
Galatians (49 AD) was probably first by Paul (and Gospel of Mark (45-60 AD) and book of James (45-55 AD); and I Thessalonians then after Galatians.(50-51)
Then 2 Thess.; then 1 Cor.(55 AD) and 2 Cor. (56 AD) and then Romans (57-58 AD), then 4 prison epistles (61-62 AD – Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). Luke and Acts were written by Luke by 62 AD, because of the way Acts ends, and so Luke had to be before that. Matthew in 50 or 55 AD. Hebrews was definitely written before 68 AD, before war and destruction of the temple, because he speaks in present tense of the priests doing the ministry in the temple. 2 Peter was probably dictated to Jude, by Peter from prison before he was executed by Nero in 67 AD. 1 Peter by 64 AD. Peter used an amanuensis (first century “secretary” who had the freedom to craft the letter with proper language – from oral spoken Aramaic to written Greek). 1 Peter 5:12 – Silvanus wrote for Peter. Mark wrote the gospel for Peter; Jude wrote 2 Peter for Peter. (similar content and style in both letters.)
They early centuries the church was persecuted, and they were in individual scrolls, so they were not collected and attached to one another in sheets or books until later – and many books and scrolls were burned during the great persecutions of Decius (250-255 AD) and Diocletian (303-312 AD). Only after the great persecutions were over, could the early church hash out their understanding of some of the books/scrolls which were not as well known. But there was never any question about the 4 gospels or the epistles of Paul from the beginning. Some parts of the Christian world had questions about 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, Hebrews, and 2-3 John, because they did not know of them yet, or they were not sure who wrote them.
The Roman Catholic view is that the church created or decided what was “canon” (rule, law, criterion, standard).
The Protestant position is that the books were already inspired or God-breathed when they were written (by 96 AD, if Revelation or Jude were the last ones written around that time), but that it took a while for the church to recognize them or discover them or collect them all under one list or book cover. So the canonization process refers to the human process of discovering what was already there and already “God-breathed”.
Origen lists all the 27 books as inspired around 250 AD.
Irenaeus and Tertullian already quoted from them and / alluded to most of them by 180-200 AD.
Others were quoted to or alluded to earlier in smaller works. (96-150 AD)
Justin Martyr referred to the 4 gospels and used John 1:1 and 1:14 about the eternal logos / word becoming flesh in 155 AD.
LikeLike
sorry, the persecution by Decius was 250 AD. (Origen was tortured, but survived until 253-254 AD)
Another persecution by Valerian was 253-260 AD. (Cyprian beheaded in 258 AD)
Diocletian and others after him lasted from 303-312 AD.
LikeLike
This is a good 10 part series from a believing scholar about the NT canon.
It is better than the liberalism scholarship; and better than the Roman Catholic view (that the Church decided which books would be in the canon) that Muslims seem to use to make their arguments.
http://michaeljkruger.com/the-complete-series-10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon/
LikeLike
You Say:
Since you have to admit that Muhammad could not read or write (Qur’an, Surah 7:157), he was ignorant of what the written books/ scrolls were. He is just hearing things from all kinds of Jews in and around Medina, and the apocryphal gospels in Arabia and various pseudo-Christian sects (some of the stuff in the Qur’an is from Gnostic gospels and legends, like the Legend of the seven sleepers and infancy gospel of Thomas), and the more orthodox ones up in Palestine and Syria at that time, when he traveled up there on the caravan trade routes.
I Say:
Why couldn’t he of heard completely accurate things? However with that aside, the Qur’anic picture of Jesus converges rather well with what is being said by the mainstrain New Testament scholars and historians of the time which include:
1. His birth being the object of unique circumstances
2. He claimed to be the Messiah
3. He was a Messenger of God
4. He pointed his audience to Faith in God and obedience to the Torah
5. He amassed both followers and enemies so much so that they desired to kill him
6. He was condemned to death by crucifixion
7. He ascended into Heaven
8. He was considered a miracle worker
Which part of these claims contradict historical research and what Christians have believed for the last 2000 years? It seems pretty accurate as does the noted Christian scholar in Hans Kung
As far as the claims regarding the use of pre existing sources, I have no opinion on this as I simply don’t know enough to take a position.
You Say:
Since the Qur’an also says, “the book”, and the people of the book, and “we believe in the Scriptures/ writings/books that were revealed before”, this shows that at the time of Muhammad, they understood him and the Qur’an to be talking about the written books in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).
I Say:
Going back to what the general response is to this is that what the Qur’an might be referring to is the original revelation/scripture/writings given to the prophets. This quotation does not necessarily infere that the OT and NT fully articulate those revelations.
LikeLike
You Say:
Professor Muhammad Abdel Haleem – he admits that the Qur’an never says that the text النص or متن الکتاب has been corrupted. What was corrupted was the meaning of the text تحریف المعانی or تحریف المعنا , not the text itself. That is what Surah 3:78 is saying, “there is a party of them that distort the meaning with their tongues”; it does not say that the text of the written text was corrupted.
I Say:
Well…yeah thats why I pointed it out and said that I was going to defer to his wisdom. But he also stated that the Gospel of Jesus(pbuh) is has been largely lost to history.
You Say:
You guys always leave them out. You have the advantage in that sense, because the west gives freedom to criticize and be agnostic and skeptics and atheists scholars and liberal scholars who don’t believe in miracles or revelation or prophetic ministry. That seems inconsistent because you would want me to use your conservative scholars who actually believe in the text of the Qur’an as revelation, etc.
I Say:
I am not excluding anyone Ken. The positions that I have expressed are that of the majority of experts in the field whether “liberal” or “conservative”, Christian or not. I fully recognize that there are scholars who disagree with some or all of these views. I don’t have any conservative scholars i’m afraid but if you have any to spare please don’t hesitate to say as I apparently seem to need some 🙂
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You Say:
You guys always leave them out. You have the advantage in that sense, because the west gives freedom to criticize and be agnostic and skeptics and atheists scholars and liberal scholars who don’t believe in miracles or revelation or prophetic ministry. That seems inconsistent because you would want me to use your conservative scholars who actually believe in the text of the Qur’an as revelation, etc.
I say;
Muslims do not have advantage when it comes to the freedom to criticize its religion. There are so many books against Islam and Muslims from orientalists to Arabs and former Muslims like Ergun Carner, Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, and many many more. Nabil Quraish who was not a Muslim but an Ahmadi who claim to be former Muslim has written some few books and criticizing Islam in recent months. If he(Nabil), Ergun Carner, Shoebat etc. have any credibility left in them rather than lie to lazy Christians who would not research but donate their money to these fake ex-Muslims thinking they are hearing a credible thing from them. You can cite the ex Muslims here for your argument like how we are citing credible Christians for our argument.
At least, our friend James White is not a lazy Christian by taking a video of a Muslim seriously to help further expose Ergun Carner’s lies and the lies of others, Ken there are so many freedom to criticise Islam and people are doing it to the extent or writing a book denying prophet Mohammed ever existed, so you can refer to any for your argument.
There is a Somalia lady called Aayan Ali and another lady who is her mentor and they are writing books against Islam and they are having platforms and speeches here and there. You can cite their works for your arguments if they are credible. They claim to be Muslims but feel Islam needs change, so Islam has constant assault than any other religion.
People were killed by Christians because they translated the Bible into English. The freedom in the West now to criticized Christianity is not by Christians but by liberals, so a Christian like Ken Temple must not take credit for that. His protestants persecuted the Catholics and the Mormons and that is a big theocracy. So it is philosophical dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy to call other religion a theocratic religion when your Lord Jesus Christ is a theocrat left and right.
Thanks
LikeLike
Why couldn’t he of heard completely accurate things?
Obviously he didn’t.
He denied established history. Surah 4:157
Denying that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died and buried at the time that the NT abundantly testifies to; is crazy.
He didn’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity. He saw the early beginnings of Mariology and people praying to icons, statues of Mary, so he thought the Trinity was the Father, the Son, and the mother. (Surah 5:116; 5:72-75)
He mis-understood what the Christians meant when they said, “Al Masih is the Son of God”. (Surah 6:101; 19:88-93; 112)
Allah should have known what the doctrine of the Trinity was, and what the Christians taught as meaning, “the Son of God”, even if those doctrines were additions by the apostle Paul (as Muslims accuse), since they go all the back to Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. Allah would still be able to accurately describe the doctrines in a book that comes 500 + years later, since the Christians were writing about it for 500 + years!!
Revelation stopped 500 years earlier – Jude, verse 3 – “the faith was once for all time delivered to the saints”. The NT was finished by 96 AD. No more revelation or prophets or apostles after that.
He incorporated apocryphal gospels into the Qur’an.
He incorporated legends into the Qur’an – “the cave of seven sleepers” (in Surah 18:9-26)
LikeLike
However with that aside, the Qur’anic picture of Jesus converges rather well with what is being said by the mainstrain New Testament scholars and historians of the time which include:
1. His birth being the object of unique circumstances
2. He claimed to be the Messiah
3. He was a Messenger of God
4. He pointed his audience to Faith in God and obedience to the Torah
5. He amassed both followers and enemies so much so that they desired to kill him
6. He was condemned to death by crucifixion
7. He ascended into Heaven
8. He was considered a miracle worker
If by “mainstream” NT scholars and historians you mean liberal scholars, they would never agree to no. 7, that Jesus ascended into heaven. They deny miracles outright. They deny the possibility of historically being able to verify miracles. they may say, “the disciples thought or imagined or believed He ascended into heaven”.
They would also not agree with no. 3 – they would say he claimed to be a messenger of God.
On no. 6, they know He was also put to death on the cross by orders of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, being manipulated into it by the Jewish leadership of Caiaphas, Annas, the high priests, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, etc.
Amazing that the Qur’an affirms the virgin birth of Jesus, but denies easily understood history, that anyone with a brain can research and see as historical truth.
The Qur’an also says the disciples of Jesus would be victorious, manifest, and uppermost – until the day of resurrection !! . (Surah 3:55; 61:14)
But Islam claims that somewhere after Jesus, Paul and others hijacked everything and overcame the true disciples, and forged documents and added doctrines of the Son of God into Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, the epistles of Paul, the epistles of Peter, Hebrews, Jude, James, Revelation, etc. !! and
so, from 45 AD to 613 AD, since the doctrines of the death and resurrection and atonement on the cross, the Son of God, and the Trinity were all victorious, manifest, uppermost in the whole Roman and Byzantine Empire, etc. – that contradicts Surah 3:55 and 61:14.
اذ قال الله يا عيسى اني متوفيك ورافعك الي ومطهرك من الذين كفروا وجاعل الذين اتبعوك فوق الذين كفروا الى يوم القيامة ثم الي مرجعكم فاحكم بينكم فيما كنتم فيه تختلفون
[Mention] when Allah said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.
“superior until the day of resurrection” !! = فوق . . . الی یوم القیامه
Surah 3:54 says it was Allah’s scheme and cunning plan.
ومكروا ومكر الله والله خير الماكرين
مکر = deception, trick, scheme, cunning plan. Allah is the very best schemer/ trickster/ – no one can outwit Him in a cunning plan; no one can trick and deceive better than Allah.
Surah 61:14 –
يا ايها الذين امنوا كونوا انصار الله كما قال عيسى ابن مريم للحواريين من انصاري الى الله قال الحواريون نحن انصار الله فامنت طائفة من بني اسرائيل وكفرت طائفة فايدنا الذين امنوا على عدوهم فاصبحوا ظاهرين
O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah , as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, “Who are my supporters for Allah ?” The disciples said, “We are supporters of Allah .” And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.
Surah 61:14
ظاهرین = the obvious ones, the dominant ones, the ones who are manifest, clear, obviously (victorious, more numerous)
The Qur’anic picture of Jesus and His followers makes no sense with historical fact. In history, Jesus was truly crucified and died, and buried, rose from the dead; and His followers taught His atoning death for sins, His powerful resurrection, that He is the Divine Son of God / eternal Word of God who became flesh, born of the virgin, the same substance and nature with the Father, and they, the same followers who taught the doctrine of the Trinity for 600 years, were the most obvious and manifest and clear. Yet the Qur’an comes along and denies all the obvious and manifestly clear things of 600 years of Christian history.
LikeLike
Ken your understanding of Christian history is wooden and simplistic. Worse, it betrays an ignorance of historical scholarship over the past century or so.
Early Christians disagreed about many things:
the role of the Torah in salvation;
the status and nature of Jesus;
whether Paul was an authentic apostle or not;
the role and ministry of women in the church; etc etc.
Go and get yourself educated on the subject dude and stop pontificating as if you had knowledge.
This excellent undergraduate text will help you to become acquainted with early church history and the New Testament:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-New-Testament-Historical-Introduction/dp/0199757534
LikeLike
The Bauer – Ehrman – Pagels thesis has been proven wrong. Get yourself educated. You are using the sound bite theology like Dan Brown’s popular lies about Christianity – “the early Christians disagreed about many things” – none of them are Islamic, the earliest heresies are anti-Islamic, such as Docetism and Gnosticism.
They claim that the Gnostics were “Christians”. no, they were not even Christians, they were heretics.
Tertullian and Irenaeus were clear – 180-220 AD.
The docetists were heretics also, and Ignatius (107-117 AD) clearly rebuked them, as did 1 John and Colossians.
1 Timothy, Colossians, 1 John, and 2 Peter all refuted the Greek philosophical movements that later became Docetism and full blown 2-3 Century Gnosticism.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Heresy-Orthodoxy-Contemporary-Understanding/dp/1433501430
Arianism comes later, in the early 300s.
Ebionism – I already refuted you on that a long time ago.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/desperate-and-dubious-muslim-apologetic-methods/
LikeLike
Ken your evident lack of knowledge on the subject betrays you.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Why couldn’t he of heard completely accurate things?
Obviously he didn’t.
He denied established history. Surah 4:157
Denying that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died and buried at the time that the NT abundantly testifies to; is crazy.
He didn’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity. He saw the early beginnings of Mariology and people praying to icons, statues of Mary, so he thought the Trinity was the Father, the Son, and the mother. (Surah 5:116; 5:72-75)
He mis-understood what the Christians meant when they said, “Al Masih is the Son of God”. (Surah 6:101; 19:88-93; 112)
Allah should have known what the doctrine of the Trinity was, and what the Christians taught as meaning, “the Son of God”, even if those doctrines were additions by the apostle Paul (as Muslims accuse), since they go all the back to Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. Allah would still be able to accurately describe the doctrines in a book that comes 500 + years later, since the Christians were writing about it for 500 + years!!
Revelation stopped 500 years earlier – Jude, verse 3 – “the faith was once for all time delivered to the saints”. The NT was finished by 96 AD. No more revelation or prophets or apostles after that.
He incorporated apocryphal gospels into the Qur’an.
He incorporated legends into the Qur’an – “the cave of seven sleepers” (in Surah 18:9-26)
I say;
If the apocryphal is not a gospel, so tell Dr. James White that, when the Quran said people of the gospel, it does not mean your book alone but it includes the apocryphal gospels.
Trinity is not in the Bible itself, so do not expect the Quran to define Trinity for you. Grade 1 child will not misunderstand what “son” means and it means either metaphorical, that makes all of us sons of God but not Jesus alone or literal-God cannot have a literal son because unlike humans God is One.
Jesus came more than 500 + to correct the Jews, so I do not know your problem. Prophet Abraham was raised among idol worshipers so many years before correcting them, so I do not know your problem.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Amazing that the Qur’an affirms the virgin birth of Jesus, but denies easily understood history, that anyone with a brain can research and see as historical truth.
The Qur’an also says the disciples of Jesus would be victorious, manifest, and uppermost – until the day of resurrection !! . (Surah 3:55; 61:14)
But Islam claims that somewhere after Jesus, Paul and others hijacked everything and overcame the true disciples, and forged documents and added doctrines of the Son of God into Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, the epistles of Paul, the epistles of Peter, Hebrews, Jude, James, Revelation, etc. !! and
so, from 45 AD to 613 AD, since the doctrines of the death and resurrection and atonement on the cross, the Son of God, and the Trinity were all victorious, manifest, uppermost in the whole Roman and Byzantine Empire, etc. – that contradicts Surah 3:55 and 61:14.
I say;
Sura 3:55
Sahih International
[Mention] when Allah said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.
Ken, the above verse is not talking about you or any Christian because it did not say people of the book or Nasara as it refers to Christians. You may have wishful thinking it is Christians but that is not what the Quran is referring to.
61:14
Sahih International
O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah , as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, “Who are my supporters for Allah ?” The disciples said, “We are supporters of Allah .” And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.
Again, the Quran is talking about children of Israel only not Greeko-Roman Christians who had their religion from Sun generating/creating rays and the Quran obviously condemn any association with one God as divine beings. The Quran also condemn Christians for worshiping Jesus and saying 3 as part of their God, so the verse clearly stated the faction of the Children of Israel and not Greeko-Roman Christians.
Dominant/upper most/favoured
The Greeks and Romans where powerful before and after Jesus and why are they powerful and dominant than the religion of God-Judaism- is because of freewill some idol worshiping religion can be dominant to the religion of God but God expect His followers to keep to their right religion but not to abandon it and follow the dominant one.
Preaching God is One, Only and Alone is dominant than any other preaching in this world now and that was what was preached by the disciples of Jesus Christ who are the Children of Israel but not Greeko-Roman Christians.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
KT://Paul Bilal Williams in an article (no longer there; as he changed his web-sites several times over the past few years) where he says he talked to Professor Muhammad Abdel Haleem – he admits that the Qur’an never says that the text النص or متن الکتاب has been corrupted. What was corrupted was the meaning of the text تحریف المعانی or تحریف المعنا , not the text itself. That is what Surah 3:78 is saying, “there is a party of them that distort the meaning with their tongues”; it does not say that the text of the written text was corrupted.//
The Quran is clear that people of the book came and wrote things from their own and claimed that it was from God. They then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Torah and Gospel not books written by Paul or anonymous ) and removed and added to them.
وَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَـبَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ
Therefore woe be unto those who write the Book with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” (Q 2:79)
A clear charge of TEXTUAL corruption not just the meaning of the text.
Also the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ever said that that the Christians and Jews DISTORTED their books as in the following hadith:
قال أبو عبد الله الحاكم في المستدرك :
أخبرنا أبو عبد الله محمد بن عبد الله الصفار، حدثنا أحمد بن مهدي بن رستم الأصفهاني، حدثنا معاذ بن هشام الدستوائي، حدثني أبي، حدثني القاسم بن عوف الشيباني، حدثنا معاذ بن جبل -رضي الله تعالى عنه-:
أنه أتى الشام، فرأى النصارى يسجدون لأساقفتهم، وقسيسيهم، وبطارقتهم، ورأى اليهود يسجدون لأحبارهم، ورهبانهم، وربانيهم، وعلمائهم، وفقهائهم.
فقال: لأي شيء تفعلون هذا؟
قالوا: هذه تحية الأنبياء -عليهم الصلاة والسلام-.
قلت: فنحن أحق أن نصنع بنبينا.
فقال نبي الله -صلَّى الله عليه وسلم-: (***إنهم كذبوا على أنبيائهم، كما حرفوا كتابهم***، لو أمرت أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها، من عظيم حقه عليها، ولا تجد امرأة حلاوة الإيمان حتى تؤدي حق زوجها، ولو سألها نفسها وهي على ظهر قتب)
Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abdullah As-Saffar told us: Ahmad Ibn Mahdi Ibn Rustum Al-Asfahani told us: Mu’azh Ibn Hisham Ad-Distwani told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn ‘Awf Ash-Shaybani told me: Mu’azh Ibn Jabal – May Allah be pleased with him –
told us that he went to Sham and saw the Christians prostrate to their Bishops and priests and saw the Jews prostrate to their Rabbis and scholars.
He said, “Why do you do this?”
they answered, “This is the greeting of Prophets (peace be upon him)”.
I said, “We better do this to our Prophet”.
Allah’s Prophet – Peace be upon him – said, “THEY LIED ABOUT THEIR PROPHETS JUST AS THEY DISTORTED (حَرَّفَ ) THEIR BOOK. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command woman to prostrate to her husband for his great right upon her. No woman will taste the sweetness of Faith till she does her husband’s rights even if he asks herself while she is on a hump (of a camel)”
Source: Musnad Ibn Hanbal hadith no 18971
https://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=121&pid=61713&hid=18971
Modern scholarships also agree with the premise that the books that now constitute the New Testament were not written by Jesus (peace be upon him). There is NO evidences of unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of writings which reaches Jesus (peace be upon him).
So prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was always truthful because he got revelation directly from Almighty of what the Injeel of true Christ was – it is NOT about the Epistles of Paul or Peter or Revelation or the book of Acts, or that four gospels man-made writings.
LikeLiked by 1 person