Sanaa Palimpsest is one of the easiest Qur’anic MSS, yet it disagrees with the ‘perfect preserved’ Qur’an Muslims are reading today.
On 11 February, Hatun and Daniel looked at some of the variants at Speakers Corner.
Last week, Darren Osborne was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Makram Ali after intentionally driving his vehicle into worshippers at Finsbury Park mosque in June 2017. In her sentencing, the Judge said Osborne had been
“rapidly radicalised over the internet, encountering and consuming material put out … from those determined to spread hatred of Muslims on the basis of their religion.”
So what kind of content is she referring to? Tommy Robinson tweets apparently- despite their content being reasonable criticism rather than hate speech as demonstrated in his Newsnight interview. But apparently these weren’t the main factors in Osborne’s ‘radicalisation’. The Guardian tells us:
“The court also heard that the catalyst for Osborne’s descent was the BBC drama-documentary Three Girls, which focused on the grooming and sexual abuse of young girls in Rochdale by British-Pakistani Muslim men.”
Can the Guardian seriously be suggesting that the BBC is at fault here? It made an excellent drama based on the lawful conviction of nine men, as part of the well-attested issue of grooming gangs. All the BBC did was dramatise the facts. The BBC – regularly accused of liberal bias – would be the last media organisation on earth to produce material “determined to spread hatred of Muslims on the basis of their religion.”
Maajd Nawaz, head of the Quilliam Foundation, has been honest enough to admit the problem of grooming gangs is an Islamic problem:
“[Grooming gangs] have occurred in Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, Telford, Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich, Burnley, High Wycombe, Leicester, Dewsbury, Middlesborough, Peterborough, Bristol, Halifax and Newcastle and only in two of those cases were the men not of British South Asian Muslim heritage. All of the victims, in all of those cities and the list was very long, except three were white teenage girls. The fact that 84% of these cases involve British South Asian Muslim men must beg the question, why?”
Alongside some horrible anti-Muslim slurs, Osborne’s rambling letter that was read out in court expressed frustration at politicians and celebrities failure to recognise grooming gangs and terrorism as anything to do with Islam. Darren Osborne’s actions are not justifiable in any way. But from his own evidence, it seems his motive was vengeful retaliation for crimes, the Islamic basis for which are never properly confronted by the media or politicians. Christian doctrine and values are routinely scrutinised and pilloried as bigotry, while the impact of orthodox Islamic teaching is either ignored or denied. But it shows things have gone to another level when the BBC gets the blame, with even the judiciary content to shoot the messenger.
Nor is the BBC the only one accused of producing radical content. In another story, the Alpha Course and J. John’s ‘Just 10’ course material were also in the firing line, following the scandalous dismissal of Pastor Paul Song from Brixton Prison after 20 years service on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. Song claims he was ousted following pressure from Imam Mohammed Yusuf Ahmed, the managing chaplain at Brixton Prison, who called his Christian beliefs “extreme” and considered courses (like Alpha) to be “too radical.”
I’ve done an Alpha course. Here is a summary of its ‘radical’ teachings. Believe in Jesus, the Son of God, who died on the Cross for you; pray to God in the Name of Jesus regularly; read the Bible regularly; resist the devil; be filled with the Holy Spirit; tell others about your faith. It is all grounded in consistent, coherent Biblical doctrine (give or take some in house debate on the emphasis on the Holy Spirit, but this is a side issue.)
Is Alpha radical? The word ‘radical’ comes from the Latin ‘radix’, meaning ‘root’. So in a way, Ahmed is right: the Alpha course (and others like it) go to the root of Biblical teaching and the root of the human condition – our separation from God through sin and our reconciliation to Him exclusively through faith in His Son and his death on the Cross.
These teachings are also in direct conflict with what Islam teaches. In Islam, Jesus is no more than a prophet whose mission ended in failure, prayer is to an impersonal, unrelational deity called Allah, to whom you will never be more than a slave. You must obey the Qur’an and the Sunnah, including the harsh treatment of apostates, women, homosexuals and unbelievers.
Here’s the point. Radicalism isn’t just a matter of root, but fruit.
Jesus says in Mark 7 that our hearts are the issue:
“What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Darren Osborne’s heart was filled with the desire for revenge; Islamic terrorists hearts are warped by false ideology. In both cases, pain, trauma, death and grief are the resulting fruit. Both are equally in need of radical, spiritual re-birth- something only Jesus can bring about.
The ‘radical’ Christian teaching Pastor Song espoused had some remarkable fruit. Look how the Times, a secular newspaper, puts it:
Affidavits from prisoners described how Song helped them turn away from crime. Song himself wrote of one inmate who would tell him his only regret was that he had not managed to finish off his intended murder victim, but changed his view after counselling from the pastor.
If only Pastor Song were in post to counsel Darren Osborne – and willing, radical Muslims as well. Let’s pray he is re-instated.
James White and Adnan Rashid had a debate recently on whether or not the Cross is necessary for salvation. In my last post, I analysed the main points raised; in this post, I will hold Adnan Rashid accountable for what he said about Islam.
I will take four of Adnan Rashid’s statements to which I offer my own suggested rapid-fire responses. Each statement could be a debate topic in its own right, and there are deeper theological answers to all of them. But my experience at Speaker’s Corner tells me that more debates are won through a good come-back than through detailed theological explanation. Muslims use this tactic all the time, whether or not their come-backs have any theological support (they often don’t.) A good come-back sticks in the mind of the person watching; it’s the hook that leads them to dig deeper and is something all Christian debaters (myself included) can learn to practice more. Although (needless to say), for the sake of Christ and his truth, as well as our own personal integrity as ambassadors for the Gospel, our come-backs must also be well-grounded theologically.
I’ll try and keep the responses relative to the debate topic for the sake of brevity – for example with the first one, you could go on and on…
Is Islam consistent with Genesis 3:21, where the Lord makes ‘garments of skin’ for Adam and Eve, i.e. animal sacrifice, even before the institution of the Mosaic law? Why does the Qur’an omit this detail? Why, according to the Qur’an, are Adam and Eve expelled from the garden at all, when the Qur’an says Adam received forgiveness from his Lord (Sura 2:37)? The Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve were forgiven, it says they were cursed – in clear contradiction to the Qur’an. Genesis 3 also says that Eve’s offspring would one day crush the head of Satan. No mere human offspring can crush the head of Satan, so it must refer to a god-man – Jesus. That God can become a man is anathema in Islam.
In Exodus, Moses sprinkles blood on his chosen people as confirmation of God’s covenant with them(Exodus 24:8). The Qur’an mentions that Allah made a covenant with the Israelites as God’s people, but it is a covenant based on works, not on blood:
And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains; and Allah said: Surely I am with you; if you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My apostles and assist them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will most certainly cover your evil deeds, and I will most certainly cause you to enter into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but whoever disbelieves from among you after that, he indeed shall lose the right way. S. 5:12
The Qur’an even says explicitly that vicarious blood sacrifice does not make a difference to Allah. Sura 22:37
“It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah, but it is piety from you that reaches him.”
This stands in direct contradiction to the whole sacrificial system. On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest made atonement for himself and the people through the sprinkling blood before the mercy seat of YHWH. In Leviticus 17:11, YHWH forbids the eating of blood because “it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” If this system was abrogated by Allah, then how can he disregard his own law without being inconsistent? If he fulfils it, then how? These questions are not answered according to the ‘clear’, ‘detailed’, ‘well explained’ Qur’an (Sura 12:111). Same goes for the role of the High Priest and the priesthood.
The OT repeatedly mentions that YHWH will come Himself to earth to rescue and redeem his people (Gen 3:15, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Job 19:25, Isaiah 9:6). Again – where is the evidence that Allah is a saviour, a redeemer? Why is it not one of his 99 names, when the theme of YHWH redeeming his people is such a consistent thread running throughout the OT? According to Islam it is impossible for Allah, a monad, to come to earth.
Islam is not consistent with the Old Testament.
2. “Islam teaches just do the law and you will be forgiven.”
What law exactly does Islam teach? Do you mean the Mosaic law, which the Qur’an says is revealed by Allah (Sura 3:3-4, S29:46, S5:47-8) or sharia law, which doesn’t come directly from the Qur’an but is a man-made extrapolation of Islamic teaching? If you mean the Mosaic law – which you say is consistent with Islam – why are you not still sacrificing animals, keeping the Sabbath, putting to death anyone who curses their father and mother etc? If you mean sharia, please support your statement from Islamic sources that this guarantees forgiveness? And what do you mean exactly by ‘doing’ the law? Do you have to ‘do’ all of it? Will Allah forgive you if you keep only some, not all of it?
3. “Simply repent and Allah will forgive you.”
But wait, I thought you said ‘do the law’ and you will be forgiven? Now it’s ‘simply repent’? Which is it, and if you meant ‘repent’, where does the Qur’an say this exactly? The Qur’an even states there are circumstances where ‘simple repentance’ is not accepted, i.e. on your deathbed. Sura 4:18
“And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: “now I repent;” nor of those who die while they are disbelievers. For them we have prepared a painful torment.”
4. “We have been promised forgiveness as long as we die as Muslims.”
Now it gets even more confusing. How do you get saved exactly -through repentance, obeying the law (which law?) or dying as Muslims? According to the verse I just quoted, if you do evil deeds your repentance will not be accepted on your death bed. Presumably it’s possible to do evil deeds and still call yourself a Muslim?
In fact, there is a sahih Hadith that supports this statement, despite contradicting the Qur’an. Bukhari 7:72:717:
Narrated Abu Dharr:
I came to the Prophet while he was wearing white clothes and sleeping. Then I went back to him again after he had got up from his sleep. He said, “Nobody says: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and then later on he dies while believing in that, except that he will enter Paradise.’ I said, “Even It he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft.” I said. “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft? He said. ‘Even If he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft,” I said, ‘Even it he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and thefts.’ He said, “Even If he had committed Illegal sexual intercourse and theft, inspite of the Abu Dharrs dislikeness. Abu ‘Abdullah said, “This is at the time of death or before it if one repents and regrets and says “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. He will be forgiven his sins.”
So we see that despite Adnan Rashid’s attempts to make it sound simple and straightforward, every one of his statements about Islam is highly problematic. Islam doesn’t confirm the OT, but in fact either contradicts or denies it, while offering no clear means of salvation whatsoever as an alternative. This is hardly surprising, given Muhammad himself wasn’t sure of his eternal destiny. Sura 46:9 states:
“Say, (O Muhammad): “I am not a new thing among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am but a plain Warner.”
Compare this to how Jesus fulfils the OT, as summarised so beautifully in Hebrews 9:11-14 while simultaneously demonstrating the necessity of the Cross:
But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Placeonce for all by his own blood, thus obtaining[b] eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
We continue to pray and implore Muslims to see Jesus as He really is.
Thank you to Sam Shamoun for helping me understand this topic better. He has done his own rebuttal to Adnan Rashid here.
The recent encounter between James White and Adnan Rashid on “Is the Cross necessary for salvation?” was predictable enough. Dr White did OK on the apologetics, and preached the Gospel beautifully at the end to his credit. But this was not a debate. Everything was so terribly polite, with lots of rather pointed comments about how respectful everything was (subtext: not like nasty Speaker’s Corner!) The cross examination was more like a polite exchange of views – hardly worthy of the name. An hour in (trying not to nod off) I was still waiting for things to get a bit more feisty, more passionate, more real. You can respect someone and still be confrontational, right? They seem to manage it at the House of Commons and Channel 4 News well enough – even at Speaker’s Corner, that’s always our aim. Vigorous debate is much more honest and engaging, and my own experience of debating Adnan Rashid is that he can certainly handle it.
James White’s first objective was to “demonstrate the centrality of the Cross in divine revelation…beginning with the writings of the Apostles.” I wasn’t sure why he didn’t start with Jesus himself – the many times He predicts His death, Jesus statement in Mark that He would give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), the Last Supper. He dwelt on the fact (Acts 2:36) of the crucifixion rather than its necessity (Acts 4:12) . JW elaborated on Paul’s teaching on the power of the Cross (1 Cor 1:17) to reconcile mankind to God (Ephesians 2,Colossians 1:19-20) and how the suffering of the Messiah is prophesied in the Old Testament (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53) as stated by Jesus himself (Luke 24:44). This seemed to be slightly off-topic, as the central issue is atonement, not the suffering of the Messiah or his identity – the Qur’an states Jesus is the Messiah, so that shouldn’t be an issue for Muslims (although it does open for them a big can of worms.) There was no mention about the necessity of blood sacrifice in the Mosaic law, fulfilled in Christ and explained at length in the book Hebrews. Although he made some strong points about Jesus’ identity, it felt like he missed the main meat of the argument, which was a shame.
Adnan Rashid argued that only Paul taught salvation by faith in the Cross of Christ, but that the OT doesn’t teach the necessity of blood sacrifice. It does! Exodus 24:3, Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22:
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Instead his argument relied heavily upon cherry-picked, de-contextualised verses and appeals to scholarship. He tried to turn every reference from the Gospels into either an authorship issue or a textual criticism issue, for example asking why does Luke omit Mark 10:45? (As Lydia McGrew argues in her excellent lecture, “sometimes a variant is just a variant,” and an ‘omission’ presupposes the author’s intention, when they just might have remembered things differently.) The Mosaic law, the Last Supper, Hebrews etc were all,again, conspicuous by their absence. His most interesting argument was whether or not the Book of James teaches salvation by works, therefore contradicting the letters of Paul?
James White should have recognised this for the clever tactic it was, rather than allow for side-tracking with his ‘just-read-my-book’ answer. This rather pompous response doesn’t work in a debate situation; a failure to give a simple answer comes across like you have something to hide. But there is a reasonable, simple answer to the Paul vs James objection, which John Piper summarises very well:
When Paul teaches in Romans 4:5 that we are justified by faith alone, he means that the only thing that unites us to Christ for righteousness is dependence on Christ. When James says in James 2:24that we are not justified by faith alone he means that the faith which justifies does not remain alone. These two positions are not contradictory. Faith alone unites us to Christ for righteousness, and the faith that unites us to Christ for righteousness does not remain alone. It bears the fruit of love. It must do so or it is dead, demon, useless faith and does not justify.
This was James White’s response, but not very succinctly put. It was unfortunate the rebuttal and cross-examination time were unnecessarily dominated by this issue.
Otherwise, while James White did correct some of Adnan’s misapplication of verses quite skilfully, he bypassed others. For example he didn’t refute Adnan’s claim that Psalm 91 “says the Messiah will be saved.” This is the Psalm quoted by Satan during Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness in Matthew 4: 5-7:
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[a]”
How does Jesus respond? By rebuking Satan for misquoting scripture!
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[b]”
Why is Adnan using an argument from Satan on which to base his objection?
In conclusion the debate (still not the right word for it) was fine, neither a triumph nor a disaster from an apologetics perspective; but the real disappointment was how very one-sided it was. The Islamic perspective was mentioned only occasionally, let alone challenged. Statements like “Islam is consistent with the Old Testament”; “Islam teaches the law and you will be forgiven”; “simply repent and Allah will forgive you”; “we have been promised forgiveness as long as we die as Muslims” all slipped by unchecked. But check it we will – in our next post.
I’m referring to two documents that were published in the last two weeks to do with Christians and their experience of Islam. One – Open Doors World Wide Watch list was not a surprise. But it was the other item -an open letter from Catholic ex-Muslims to Pope Francis – that was the real rallying cry.
Because the WWW list is an annual, scheduled publication perhaps we’ve become immune to its shocking data. Like that fact 8 out of 10 of the world’s worst persecution for Christians are Islamic countries. They are not the only places Christians are persecuted, and atheist dictatorship North Korea is still number one: but the main reason Christians are persecuted globally is Islamic intolerance. And it’s getting worse – the top 11 countries are all now classified as places of “extreme” persection for the first time in the WWW list’s 26 year history.
That Islamic intolerance is the driving factor for global persecution of Christians isn’t news – this has been trending for years. And while church leaders, politicians, the Prince of Wales etc have spoken out against persecution per se, they’ve either been coy or in downright denial about who the persecutors are. Pope Francis is in the latter category – last year he got a gong from Cairo’s Al Azhar university for his “defense of Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism.” With friends like these, who needs enemies?
And if you’ve wondered how Catholic ex-Muslims might feel about the Pontiff’s comments, then their letter to him makes their feelings brutally clear:
“Many of us have tried to contact you, on many occasions and for several years, and we have never received the slightest acknowledgement of our letters or requests for meetings. You do not like to beat around the bush, and neither do we, so allow us to say frankly that we do not understand your teaching about Islam, as we read in paragraphs 252 and 253 of Evangelii Gaudium, because it does not account for the fact that Islam came AFTER Christ, and so is, and can only be, an Antichrist (see 1 Jn 2.22), and one of the most dangerous because it presents itself as the fulfillment of Revelation (of which Jesus would have been only a prophet). If Islam is a good religion in itself, as you seem to teach, why did we become Catholic? Do not your words question the soundness of the choice we made at the risk of our lives? Islam prescribes death for apostates (Quran 4.89, 8.7-11), do you know? ”
The Pope, having previously stated that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” is then reprimanded for his failure to understand Islamic theology:
“In fact, as long as Islam wants us to be its enemy, we are, and all our protestations of friendship cannot change anything. As a proper Antichrist, Islam exists only as an enemy of all: “Between us and you there is enmity and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone!” (Qur’an 60.4) For the Qur’an, Christians “are only impurity” (Quran 9.28),” “the worst of Creation” (Qur’an 98.6), all condemned to Hell (Qur’an 4.48), so Allah must exterminate them (Quran 9.30). We must not be deceived by the Quranic verses deemed tolerant, because they have all been repealed by the verse of the Sword (Quran 9.5).”
And so on. See also Pamela Geller’s excellent article in a previous FB post for more details.
But it’s easy to criticise others for not doing enough. So, Christians, (preaching to myself too), why don’t we make 2018 the year when we not only obey the Biblical injunction to speak up for the oppressed, but clearly identify the ideological source of the oppression. This is what our ex-Muslim brothers and sisters, having converted often at huge personal cost, want us to do. As Martin Luther King put it, “in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
You can read the letter in full and sign it here.
Earlier this month, a 6 year old girl, Zainab, was abducted after attending a tuition centre near her home town of Kasur in Pakistan, then raped, killed and thrown on a rubbish heap. This appalling case has gone viral, along with a petition on change.org.
Citing another case of child rape in Iran, the petition is asking the Supreme Court of Pakistan to hang the culprits “in front of a large crowd, so that other potential rapists learn a lesson.” But it goes on:
“Also we want the punishment to be a little harsher. As Pakistan is an Islamic country, so the rapist should first be stoned until he breathes his last and then he should be hanged.”
As horrific and shocking as this case is, since when was justice best served through such barbaric punishment? There is no doubt it is Islamic – Muhammad ordered the stoning of a rapist, as well as the stoning of adulterers, and stonings are still common in some parts of the Islamic world. But stoning is execution by torture and goes against the UN declaration of human rights. As such it also violates change.org’s community guidelines on inciting violence (I flagged it.) And while in this case, change.org is hosting a campaign for this Islamic punishment to be enacted, it supported an appeal for clemency in another, in the case of grandfather Karl Andrew who was sentenced to 350 lashes in Saudi Arabia for being caught with home-made wine in his car. Thankfully, the sentence was never upheld. So much for the activist website’s consistency on human rights.
Does the man who raped and tortured a little girl to death deserve death himself? Yes. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Should they be stoned to death? The mother in me says “do it.”
But thank God the UK justice system doesn’t revolve around my feelings. Thank God for its Christian foundations, in which “mercy triumphs over judgement.” Jesus stopped a stoning in its tracks with a simple challenge to the crowd: “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:11 ). In so doing he also overturned the Mosaic law on stoning.
Is Jesus, God made flesh, being inconsistent here? No. He is reminding us that ultimately, justice is His job, not the job of sinful human creatures. Paul reminds us in Romans 12:
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord”.
Thank God that “he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities” (Psalm 103:10). How shocking that instead, God poured the wrath we all deserve out on His own Son on the Cross, and that Jesus hung there willingly. It is the only place we find justice and mercy – even for the most horrific criminals.
May Zainab indeed get justice. May her killers go to prison for the rest of their lives to think about what they’ve done. May the God who is familiar with suffering, comfort her family. But may mercy triumph over judgement.
When it comes to Iran, Donald Trump is right. This is something arch atheist Sam Harris and I agree on:
The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the “one God” -Allah -and “his exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to his commands.” It is governed through “continuous leadership of the holy persons, possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.” So while Hassan Rouhani is the democratically elected President, it is the religious leadership – Ali Khameni and the mullahs – who wield the real power and influence.
Ray Takeyh from US think tank the Council on Foreign Relations writes
Iran’s conservatives are imbued with an ideology that views the essential purpose of the state as the realization of God’s will on Earth….Given such ideological inclinations, the hardliners are utterly contemptuous of democratic accountability and are unconcerned about their loss of popularity and widespread dissatisfaction with theocratic rule.”
Theocracy is not only justified, but the only legitimate form of government according to Islam. Sura 24:55 states
Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that – then those are the defiantly disobedient.
How is this interpreted by Ibn Kathir, one of the most trusted and reliable Islamic commentators?
This is a promise from Allah to His Messenger that He would cause his Ummah to become successors on earth, i.e., they would become the leaders and rulers of mankind, through whom He would reform the world and to whom people would submit, so that they would have in exchange a safe security after their fear. This is what Allah did indeed do, may He be glorified and exalted, and to Him be praise and blessings. For He did not cause His Messenger to die until He had given him victory over Makkah, Khaybar, Bahrayn, all of the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen; and he took Jizyah from the Zoroastrians of Hajar and from some of the border lands of Syria; and he exchanged gifts with Heraclius the ruler of Byzantium, the ruler of Egypt and Alexandria, the Muqawqis, the kings of Oman and An-Najashi of Abyssinia, who had become king after Ashamah, may Allah have mercy on him and grant him honor.
Allah promises his faithful followers that they will be rulers on earth. So Islamic theocracies are desirable as a sign of the religion’s success. Ibn Kathir also gives Muhammad’s conquests of “Mecca, Khaybar, Bahrayn, all of the Arabian Penninsula and Yemen” as an example of what success looks like. The Islamic Republic of Iran (although it denies expansionist ambitions) has spent millions of dollars fighting (directly or through its proxies) in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – at the expense of its own citizens’ welfare. These inferences aren’t lost on the protestors: “no more Islamic Republic” has been one of the chants.
Does Christian doctrine also support political theocracy? This is a big topic, but for the sake of brevity, here are three reasons from Jesus’ teachings why it doesn’t:
1. Because Jesus recognised responsibilities to the State, Christian or not
In Matthew 22 and Mark 12 Jesus talks about “giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” There is plenty of debate about whether and to what degree Jesus is separating church and state in this illustration – but he is making this point clearly: that even a pagan Emperor is owed his due. Jesus affords even non-Christian government some legitimacy.
2. Jesus doesn’t impose his divine rule on people who reject him.
Nor does Jesus resist when evil rulers subject Him to their authority. Note Jesus’ reaction to his arrest in John 18:36:
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Muhammad did impose his rule on unwilling subjects, as we see from Ibn Kathir’s commentary – “he took Jizyah [a humiliating tax imposed on non-Muslims] from the Zoroastrians of Hajar and from some of the border lands of Syria.”
3. Because Jesus’ kingdom is a heavenly, not an earthly kingdom.
Jesus exhorts people to to “repent, because the kingdom of heaven is near!” (Matt 3:2). This phrase “kingdom of heaven” occurs 31 times in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus doesn’t mean ‘God has anointed me for political rule’, but uses this expression to imply his ministry is divine in origin. He is pointing to his divinity. Through repentance and faith in Jesus, we too can be part of this heavenly kingdom.
So how has the earthly Islamic caliphate fared? Historically, the success of Islamic theocracies has always been short-lived. Three out of four ‘rightly-guided Caliphs’ were killed in power struggles; the Caliphate of Cordoba collapsed; the Ottoman Empire didn’t survive; the Taliban were ousted; Iran’s future as an Islamic Republic is uncertain.
But Jesus’ kingdom has never been limited by politics or geography. For now Jesus’ kingdom is where “two or three gather in my name – there I am also” (Matt 18:20). On his return, Jesus kingdom will be fully realised. Through the centuries, Christians have been thrown to the lions, beheaded, burnt at the stake, but none of this has stopped Christianity’s advance. And where in the world is the church growing fastest? Iran. Let’s pray for this nation.
Last week was officially our last Sunday at Speaker’s Corner in 2017. We wanted a carpet of snow, a beautiful sunset, perhaps a spontaeous rendering of Silent Night performed by a Muslim-Christian choir marking a seasonal cessation of hostilities, and a birthday cake for Jesus. God in His Sovereignty gave us torrential rain, and the choir remains a beautiful dream (next year, boys?) At least the cake came off: all our Muslim friends got a slice even if the candles refused to light and the icing looked a bit Hallow’eeny. Add a litany of technical failures and it all made for a wet, rather shambolic afternoon.
But none of the above could shake our joy at what we were there to celebrate – Jesus Christ, God himself come to earth as a vulnerable baby, all because He loves us and would go to any lengths to rescue us. The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us (John 1:14.) The same divine, eternal Word that spoke with Abraham (Genesis 15) and Samuel (1 Samuel 3), the Word that will come back in judgement (Revelation 19:13) was Jesus in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes two thousand years ago. Wow.
So what is Allah exactly? Does Allah have a body, a spirit? No one knows. Allah is not a person. To say that he has personhood is heresy. He (and you can’ t really call Allah a ‘he’ or a ‘she’ or an ‘it’ – they are all inadequate) only reveals his/her/its will, not who he/she/it is. You cannot have a relationship with Allah: you exist to do ‘his’ will, pass ‘his’ test. Allah is your master and you are his servant. Compare this with Jesus, who, while we still hated him, became a servant for us – despite being “in very nature God” (Phillipians 2.)
Is Allah a moral being? His 99 names include “the loving” and “the merciful,” but the Qur’an also calls him “the best of deceivers” (S8:30) and says that “all deception (al-makru) is Allah’s.“ (S13:42). In His sovereignty the God of the Bible uses Satan’s deceptions to fulfil His plans, but He Himself is not a deceiver – in fact Scripture says it is “impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). YHWH God is, in nature, love.
Does Allah love humans? He doesn’t care if you go to heaven or hell. Some people he has created for hell (S7:179) before they are even born:
“…[Allah] created for Paradise those who are fit for it while they were yet in their father’s loins and created for Hell those who are to go to hell. He created them for hell while they were yet in their father’s loins.” (Sahih Muslim 33:6436)
Allah is not interested in rescuing or redeeming his creation. The Qur’an ignores the redemption metanarrative of the Old and New Testaments. But YHWH God makes a way for everyone to go to heaven through sending His Son to die on a Cross for us, as prophesied from the beginning in Genesis 3:15 and throughout the OT. He doesn’t want anyone to perish but wants everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), while allowing us the freedom to choose Him or not.
These are our Christmas questions for Muslims. Allah is not personal, but you are personal – why not worship a personal God? Allah’s love is an attribute, along with deception: neither define who Allah is. You know love and deception don’t mix- why not worship a God who is love? Allah can’t and won’t rescue you – getting to him (but he’s not ‘him’ remember?) is obscure and complex. But you would rescue someone smaller and weaker than yourself, like a toddler on the road – why not worship a rescuing God? It all starts with that baby in Bethlehem.
In the last two articles we looked at salvation in Christianity; how it is won for us by Jesus on the Cross and how it is accessed by repentance and faith in Him. Now we turn our attention to Islam. Is obtaining paradise the same thing as salvation? How do you even get to paradise? Is it guaranteed?
I am hesitant to call the Islamic equivalent of salvation ‘salvation’. Why? Because Allah doesn’t save anyone. Among his 99 names are the Benificent and the Merciful, but not the Rescuer. Allah creates and reveals his will, but Allah doesn’t personally go out of his way for mankind in any way – except for Muhammad whom he grants special rights and privileges, for example when Muhammad is allowed an unlimited number of wives, (Surah 33:50) whereas his followers have to make do with “two or three or four” (Surah 4:3).
When asked the question “how do you get to paradise?” Muslims will usually answer along the lines of “as long as your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, you’ll be fine.” The Qur’an also seems to say so on first reading:
“And give glad tidings (O Muhammad) unto those who believe and do good works; that theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow; as often as they are regaled with food of the fruit thereof, they say: this is what was given us aforetime; and it is given to them in resemblance. There for them are pure companions; there for ever they abide.” (Surah 2:25,-see also Surah 2:81-2 and Surah 33:55)
But is it as simple as that? Is paradise guaranteed if you clock up enough good deeds? Not according to the hadith which says the opposite – that good deeds are NOT your ticket to paradise:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise.” (i.e., None can enter Paradise through his good deeds.) They (the Prophet’s companions) said, “Not even you, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me.” So be moderate in your religious deeds and do the deeds that are within your ability: and none of you should wish for death, for if he is a good doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 577)
Hence most Muslims will qualify their answer to the question with insh’allah – if Allah wills. Does repentance guarantee his mercy? Allah in the Qur’an takes a dim view of deathbed repentance and says you must renounce evil deeds :
Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement. (Surah 4:17-18)
But Muhammad also says renouncing evil deeds aren’t that important, as deathbed repentance is acceptable as long as the person recites the shahada. Bukhari 7:72:717
“…Nobody says: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and then later on he dies while believing in that, except that he will enter Paradise.” I said, “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft? He said. “Even If he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft….Abu ‘Abdullah said, “This is at the time of death or before it if one repents and regrets and says ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, he will be forgiven his sins.”
In short, the way to Islamic paradise is very confusing. Good deeds? Allah’s mercy? Repentance? The Shahada? Or is it all pre-destinated anyway? After all “many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell” (7:179). You can live a life full of great deeds, but they won’t help you if Allah has made you for hell.
A common Muslim objection to Christianity is that Jesus didn’t need to die for our sins – why should the innocent die for the guilty? The Qur’an also states that no person will bear the burden of another (Surah 35:18). But again, this is contradicted by Muhammad in the hadith:
“Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit IN HIS STEAD a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire.” Sahih Muslim 37:6666
Jews and Christians are substitutes for Muslims in hell? So much for Allah being consistent, let alone just.
There is one route to Paradise that is exalted in over 100 verses in the Quran – jihad. Here’s one example:
“So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – we will bestow upon him a great reward.” (Surah 4:74)
And while the Qur’an doesn’t use the word “guarantee”, the hadith does:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah’s Messenger saying, “The example of a Mujahid in Allah’s Cause– and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause—-is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.” (Bukhari 2787)
This time last year Mahmoud Shafiq Mohammed killed 29 people and injured 47 others at St. Peter and St. Paul’s Church in Cairo. His note to his accomplice read “thank you for the good hospitality and I will meet you in Paradise.” When will our governments and media stop pretending these attacks aren’t theologically motivated?
The saddest thing of all is that Muslims are trusting in a man who himself had no idea about his eternal destiny:
“Say,(O Muhammad) I am not sending something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear Warner.” (Surah 46:9)
Compare this with Jesus, who was never in any doubt about his identity or purpose, and knew exactly where he came from and where he was going:
“No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven – the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” (John 3:13)
Happy Advent everyone.
Mattel has just released its latest Barbie modelled on Ibtihaj Muhammad, the bronze-medal winning Olympic fencer. And why not? A woman who can handle a sword is really cool. Making dolls in the image of super-fit, agile, sword-wielding Olympians is the kind of thing I approve of. So I was puzzled when I read Muhammad’s tweet earlier this week:
‘Now little girls everywhere can now play with a Barbie who chooses to wear hijab!’?
The hijab makes her cool? Not the Olympic, blade expert female Zorro part? Oh. Well as long as Barbie’s happy, that’s the main thing. Are you happy, Barbie? Was it not enough for little girls to fashion a hijab for you out of an old hankie if they didn’t think you were dressed appropriately? Barbie? Oh, wait: Barbie’s a toy and can’t talk, let alone exercise choice. Bit like the 40 million women in Iran who can’t choose whether or not to wear the hijab either, except they’re not made of plastic. But this is not about Barbie’s Right To Choose, rather Mattel’s need to tell the world how much they love success and female empowerment and Muslims too, Mr Trump! Love success – good; love Muslims – good too (though not their religion); but female empowerment? When will corporations cotton on to the fact the hijab represents the opposite of female empowerment? That in Islamic countries, like Somalia and Afghanistan even if it’s not actually illegal not to wear it, in practice it is impossible for women to go outside without covering because of the harassment they experience. Where there’s no choice, there’s no empowerment.
But if Ms Muhammad, a Muslim who obviously chooses to wear the hijab, used this opportunity for a little da’wah, so what? After all if Mattel wanted to make a Lizzie Schofield Barbie, I’d make sure she wore a cross necklace and tweet that it’s because Barbie knows in her little plastic heart that Jesus died for her. However I wonder if Ms Muhammad realises that it’s a matter of debate among Islamic scholars whether girls playing with dolls is even allowed? (Notice the gender: for boys it’s haram, end of.)
Some say it’s OK, because it helps little girls develop their maternal feelings, and because Muhammad’s child wife Aisha used to play with dolls. According to Sahih Muslim, ‘she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her.” Yet many scholars agree that playing with dolls in only appropriate for pre-pubescent children: by the time they reach puberty, they can understand that dolls are images of humans, and human images are haram. (The fact that she had dolls with her demolishes the argument that Aisha had reached puberty by the time of her marriage.)
Muhammad Ibn Adam of Darul Iftar, Leicester, takes the view that Aisha’s dolls would have been primitively made, without features, unlike the dolls of today. He writes
Picture-Making of animate things has been prohibited by many narrations of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). In a Hadith recorded by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:
The most severely punished on the day of Qiyamah will be those who make (animate) pictures.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)
Therefore, if the dolls are fully structured, meaning they have the head with the eyes, ears, mouth, etc, then it will be impermissible to acquire them, give them as a gift or for small children to play with them. However, if the dolls do not have a head, meaning they do not have eyes, ears, nose and mouth which make them incomplete, then it will be permissible to make them and give them to small children.
Does Barbie have a head, eyes, nose and mouth? Hmmm. So for Barbie to be truly Islamic according to Muhammad Ibn Adam, she needs serious maiming, if not beheading. If she ‘chooses’ to wear the hijab after that, she should continue to wear it round her neck, as that is her juyubihinnya (Arabic for body, face, neck and bosom, according to Sura 24:11) and still requires covering. Or maybe, in her little plastic heart, she might decide Islam isn’t for her.