26 Aug 2012

“Islam and the Gospel”

Religious 123 Comments

[UPDATE below.]

This was a lecture series that my church hosted. The guest speaker was Al Fadi, author of The Qur’an Dilemma, a former Muslim born and raised in Saudi Arabia. I wasn’t able to attend the actual lectures, but Fadi was sort of interviewed by one of our pastors on stage today at church.

First of all, the guy seemed really nice, humble, and intellectually honest. He explained that growing up, he wanted to go fight and die in Afghanistan to try and expel the Soviets (thinking that this was the way to paradise). It was only because his parents didn’t want him doing that, that he went to school instead.

Eventually he came to the U.S., and worked with some families who happened to be Christian in order to get integrated into society, learn idioms, etc. He told us that he noticed the family was different from the typical American household, in that they were very respectful, there wasn’t cursing, etc.

He started going to a Christian church, with the aim (he told us) of bringing Christians to Islam. But eventually, as you can guess, he ended up going the other way. Now his career involves educating Muslims and Christians on what he believes are the mistakes in the Qur’an and problems with Islam, and how Christ offers the true path to salvation.

What I found ironic, and somewhat uncomfortable, was that after his autobiographical remarks, Fadi (led by questions from our pastor) started rattling off things that people needed to know about Islam. I’m just going from memory here, but it was things like:

==> It was founded on violence. Modern Muslims will say that those were just historical battles, not having anything to do with the faith, but they are misinformed. When you study the Qur’an, you see that religious conquest is really part of it.

==> Sharia law is a merging of politics and religion.

==> Women are subordinate to the men. Women can’t even get a divorce very easily.

I think there was at least one other whopper like the above. It was amazing to me that just about every criticism he brought up, was something that leftists currently say about American evangelicals. (In fairness, I do think that even other people in the crowd were a little nonplussed when Fadi was saying how hard it was for a lady to divorce her husband in Saudi Arabia, as if that was a self-evidently bad thing.)

Now of course, I think a “correct” modern Christian approach to life, evades all of this objections that the typical critic would lob at us. But that’s exactly what the “moderate” Muslims say too, and Fadi wasn’t giving them that kind of out. So like I said, it was just a weird situation to me, especially since no one ever acknowledged stuff like, “Uh, Numbers 31 isn’t exactly very peaceful or feminist either.”

Now having said all of that, here was the thing that really inspired me. When he was explaining what made him start considering Christianity, Fadi said it was the moral teachings of Jesus. In particular, His commands in the Sermon on the Mount to love your enemy and bless those who curse you–Fadi said (I have no idea if this is true) that there was nothing like that in the Qur’an. This is what he meant:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Now right after talking about how he was moved by these intriguing commands–which at first seem crazy but just might be brilliant–Fadi said something like (paraphrasing): “I knew then that I wanted to study this Jesus more. Even if what I had been taught in Saudi Arabia was true [that there was no crucifixion and that Jesus never claimed to be God, etc.], I wanted to learn more about this Jesus that the Christians followed.”

The reason this struck me so much, is that I had a similar experience. The only reason it would even occur to me to investigate the claims of modern Christians, is that their icon reputedly said the wisest things I have ever heard. Moreover, it’s not like someone giving a proof to a math problem, that is obviously correct once you see it. Rather, Jesus’ words sound flat-out nuts when you first hear them, and you put Him in a box and assume “He didn’t mean that literally.” But then as I get older, the more I think, “No, He meant that literally. But you would have to be God to have seen that on your own.”

This is part of what I mean when I say Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior. It literally was through Him that I came back to my faith in God.

Last thing: I want to clarify that of course I am not merely saying, “Wow, I read some neat sayings in a book, so therefore I believe every claim made in that book.” I have tried on several occasions to explain why I believe faith in the Christian God is actually the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the available evidence. Maybe you like my reasons, maybe you don’t, but please don’t accuse me of firing off a two-sentence syllogism.

I feel the need to bring this up because I recently got into a Facebook tussle over a photo showing a picture of the Bible with the caption, “Proof that God exists,” next to a picture of a comic book saying, “Proof that Spiderman exists.” What was interesting was that it actually took a few rounds of debate before everyone even realized why I thought that wasn’t a good argument. (!) The guy who posted the thing actually said to me, upfront, something like (I’m paraphrasing), “But Bob, the thing is, if Christians really believed that the Bible established the existence of God, then they wouldn’t rely on other arguments. Yet the best theologians do in fact offer other arguments, such as the ontological argument.”

I almost fell out of my chair. He was explaining to me why the joke he passed along was dumb, but thought he was thereby justifying why it was a fair criticism of Christians.

UPDATE: Judging from the comments, it seems people are misunderstanding what I’m doing in this post. I am IN NO WAY criticizing Muslims, except insofar as they are failing to see that Christ is the way. Indeed, my point here is that the specific things that Fadi raised against Islam, could plausibly be said of Christianity too. Hence, it would be odd for me to throw Muslims under the bus for these reasons.

Specifically, when I said “whoppers” above, I meant: things it was hilarious for Fadi to say against Islam, when plenty of atheists right now say it against Christians. For example, suppose Fadi had said, “Get this guys, Muslims actually believe that Mohammed talked to a burning bush. Crazy, right?” Then that would have been the biggest whopper of all, the way I was using the term above.

123 Responses to ““Islam and the Gospel””

  1. Jeremy R. Hammond says:

    “It was founded on violence. Modern Muslims will say that those were just historical battles, not having anything to do with the faith, but they are misinformed. When you study the Qur’an, you see that religious conquest is really part of it.”

    I have read the Bible from cover to cover and the Quran twice, and to say the incidents of violence discussed in the Quran were not just historical battles but had to do with the faith, in the sense that it was about “religious conquest” at the point of a sword, is no more or less true than to say that the violence in the Bible–which is on a vastly greater scale, including outright genocide–was about religious conquest. The Quran talks about the right to self-defense and the use of force to that end. It simply does not talk about spreading the faith at swordpoint in the sense I think is suggested here. Muslims or others who point this out are NOT “misinformed”. Quite the contrary, it’s everyone who insists this is the case, most of whom have never even read the Quran, needless to say, who are misinformed. Similarly, so-called “Muslims” who cite the Quran to justify oppression and murder are quite misinformed, the same way so-called “Christians” who cite the Bible to justify oppression and murder (e.g., Crusades, Zionism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, etc.) are perfectly ignorant about what Yeshua (a.k.a. “Jesus”) actually taught.

    • Ken B says:

      “Similarly, so-called “Muslims” who cite the Quran to justify oppression and murder are quite misinformed”

      The hubris of this statement is quite breath taking.

      I note you don’t mention having read any hadith. Why is that?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

        Are you suggesting that people who cite the Quran to justify oppression and murder have a proper understanding of the Quran? If so, would you care to substantiate that opinion? Have you ever read the Quran?

        • Egoist says:

          Are you suggesting that people who cite the Quran to justify oppression and murder have a proper understanding of the Quran?

          Are you serious? The Quran contains over 100 verses that call Muslims to wage war against nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.

          “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” – 8:12

          “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29

          “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.” – 9:123

          “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” – 25:52 (“Strive against” is Jihad)

          “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” – 48:29

          The list goes on and on…

          Have you read the Hadith? It’s even more brutal.

          ——————–

          Are you defending Islam for the sole reason that you have a political agenda to advance?

          • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

            Yes, I am serious. Do you think people who cite the Bible to justify oppression and murder have a proper understanding of the Bible?

            “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” — 1 Samuel 15:3

            If you are actually familiar with the Quran, you should be able to explain the context of your quotes. Take your first, Surah 8:12. Why do you quote it out of context? Why don’t you quote the whole context and explain it to other readers here? Why don’t you explain that the battle of Badr, against the Qureysh tribe that had aggressed against the Muslims by expelling them from Mecca from is being referred to and also quote:

            “When ye sought help of your Lord and He answered you (saying): I will help you with a thousand of the angels, rank on rank… When they Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.”

            The Muslim victory in the battle was attributed to divine intervention. That is the context from which you cherry-picked your quote, which wasn’t even a command to the Muslims, but to the angels.

            You don’t think it is dishonest to pull quotes like that out of context? See my comment below for more examples of quotes commonly cited out of context, while other quotes such as “Allah loveth not aggressors” are ignored.

            • Egoist says:

              Do you think people who cite the Bible to justify oppression and murder have a proper understanding of the Bible?

              Yes.

              Is it a habit of yours to evade the topic at hand, which is the violent foundation of the Quran? Do you always infer from a critique of the Quran that it is really a super secret conspiracy theory to propose the Bible as the only peacefully founded religion? That only Christians can critique the Quran? That one cannot critique both the Quran and the Bible as both calling for violence?

              If you are actually familiar with the Quran, you should be able to explain the context of your quotes. Take your first, Surah 8:12. Why do you quote it out of context?

              Why do you expect quotes to be surrounded by the entire Quran?

              Why don’t you quote the whole context and explain it to other readers here?

              What is the definition of the whole context? If I include more context, you’ll just say I omitted context yet again.

              Why don’t you explain that the battle of Badr, against the Qureysh tribe that had aggressed against the Muslims by expelling them from Mecca

              Why don’t you explain the reason for the violence called for in Surah 8:12, which is Surah 8:13?

              Surah 8:13:

              “That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.”

              The Muslim victory in the battle was attributed to divine intervention. That is the context from which you cherry-picked your quote, which wasn’t even a command to the Muslims, but to the angels.

              The Earthly men acted through the “angels”:

              Surah 8:17 states:

              “Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.”

              So while Earthly Muslims are busy killing unbelievers in accordance with the Quran, they (and you) believe it is Allah’s doing, not their own doing.

              Your defense of a ridiculous set of passages is just introducing more ridiculousness.

              You don’t think it is dishonest to pull quotes like that out of context?

              Even with the context, the Quran is still clearly calling for violence against unbelievers. It’s not ONLY in the fuzzy logic of “war” that such killings are justified. The reasoning is that the killings are justified because of not believing.

              See my comment below for more examples of quotes commonly cited out of context, while other quotes such as “Allah loveth not aggressors” are ignored.

              More nonsense? No thanks.

              • Ken B says:

                Egoist to JRH:”Do you always infer from a critique of the Quran that it is really a super secret conspiracy theory to propose the Bible as the only peacefully founded religion? That only Christians can critique the Quran? That one cannot critique both the Quran and the Bible as both calling for violence?”

                Excellent point. This is something I run up against all the time. It’s a useful tactic to imply that ‘oh you’re just a christian pushing his own religion.’

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                Look, if you wish to deliberately quote passages out of context to mislead people about what the Quran teaches, you do what ever floats your boat. I’m just pointing out that you are doing so.

            • Ken B says:

              “Do you think people who cite the Bible to justify oppression and murder have a proper understanding of the Bible?”

              *A* proper or *the* proper? For that is the point I am interested in. And if you mean by ‘proper’ conformant to the text, or some other meaning.

              • Ken B says:

                Crickets.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              “Why do you quote it out of context?”

              Because Egoist has never read the Koran: he has just collected these quotes from a web site.

              • Egoist says:

                Yes, I have read the Quran.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

        We can look at a few examples people cite to support the view cited. A common example is a line from Surah 9:5 that reads, “slay the idolaters wherever ye find them…”

        Well, that certainly supports the theory that the Quran preaches violence—unless, of course, one is inclined to study the context. Those who quote such passages for such a purpose often fail to provide any context, such as in this case, where the verse just previous explicitly forbids committing any violence against those who keep their peace with you. This Surah refers to a time when Muhammed and his followers had made a treaty with the tribes of non-believers who controlled Mecca, only to have that treaty broken when the opponents of Islam attacked and massacred a tribe allied with the Muslims. Verse 4 states explicitly that those who have kept their treaty are excepted from the command of violence. As for the call to arms, it is explicitly a call to self-defense, not aggression. As verse 13 reads, “Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first?”

        Surah 2:191 is another commonly quoted evidence of the violence of Islam. It begins, “And slay them wherever ye find them…” What is left conveniently unmentioned is that the previous verse explicitly forbids violence except in self-defense. “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” The command to “slay them” refers to those who have engaged in hostilities and is a command to defend against aggressors. The very next verse, similarly conveniently left out in such arguments, explicitly states that if the aggressors cease from their hostilities, Muslims are to “desist”, only to “fight them until persecution is no more”, for “Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

        Most people, most Christians certainly being no exception, would be surprised to learn some other things about what the Quran actually says. It calls the Jews the “Children of Israel” and recognizes the covenant between the God of Abraham and his descendants. It refers to the great prophets of old, such as Moses, who received the Ten Commandments “that ye might be led aright.” It recognizes the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as “Scripture”, for before the Quran, Allah had “revealed the Torah and the Gospel”.

        The Quran describes faithful Jews and Christians as being “People of the Scripture”. They are included with Muslims as those who “believeth in Allah and the Last Day” and who “doeth right”, and says of them that “their reward is with their Lord”. It asks, “And who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?” Where it criticizes Jews and Christians, it is on the grounds that “Ye have naught till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord.” Jesus, it may be noted, made a similar criticism of his people.

        As in the New Testament, the Quran speaks of the “Day of Resurrection” and speaks of “Jesus, son of Mary,” the “Messiah” who was supported “with the holy Spirit” who confirmed the Torah that was before him, who ascended to God.

        The Quran gives instructions on how to treat women, calling upon men to respect them. Islam raised women from being mere chattel to having legal rights, such as rights of inheritance and, “If a woman feareth ill-treatment from her husband”, divorce.

        Criticism of Islam from some Christians is particularly intriguing. One is forced to wonder whether many Christians have ever even read their own Book, much less the Quran. The Bible contains no shortage of passages one could take, either in or out of context, to support the argument that Christianity is a violent religion. Take 1 Samuel 15:3, in which the Israelites are commanded to attack the people of Amalek “and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” There are no similar incitements to genocide within the pages of the Quran. While the command to commit an indiscriminate act of revenge in the Bible is commonly explained away as righteous execution of God’s judgment, the command for Muslims to “slay” those who have engaged in hostilities against them in the Quran is regarded as “terrorism” and the like.

        • Ken B says:

          Jeremy, are you even aware that you are *interpreting* here. You cite supposed occassions of the revelation. That is NOT in the Koran. Those tales are in the hadith. I’m not going to get into it but 1) hadith are in fact crystalized exegesis and 2) evn if the hadith were not, and were reliable history it is still *interpretation* to use them to modify or illuminate the plain meaning of the Koranic passage. You are interpreting. And you haven’t dealt with abrogation yet. Well others, who speak Arabic better than you do, who know the hadith better than you do, who know the Koran better than you do, also interpret. Many of them find quite the opposite. (I will cite only R Khomeini. of whom several on this blog have heard.) You really want to argue they just have no clue?

          • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

            And if you disagree, you are also interpreting.

            • Ken B says:

              Yes I am. But I am acknowledging that I cannot airily dismiss the interpretations of life long muslim scholars. But you are doing that; that’s our difference.

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                Actually, most life long Muslim scholars would agree with me. Perhaps by “life-long Muslim scholars” you are referring to people like Ayman al-Zawahiri or something?

              • Egoist says:

                Actually, most would not.

                Your interpretation is a relatively recent one, held by a minority of “progressive” Islamic scholars who are (thankfully) having an increasing influence.

                The “crime” of apostasy is still being treated with severe Earthly punishments in many Muslim countries.

                In Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman was imprisoned for thought crimes, and faced the death penalty before last minute intervention by Karzai.

                In Iran, apostates are imprisoned and executed.

                In Saudi Arabia, they teach children apostates are to be imprisoned for 3 days, and if they don’t repent, they are to be killed.

                In Algeria, apostates are imprisoned for 2 to 5 years.

                In Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, over 3/4 of each population believe apostasy should be punished by death.

                WHERE ARE THEY LEARNING SUCH VIOLENCE?

                Oh that’s right, from the Quran and Hadith. But yeah, let’s try to argue that millions of people all across the middle east are misinterpreting Islam.

              • Ken B says:

                “Perhaps by “life-long Muslim scholars” you are referring to people like Ayman al-Zawahiri or something?”

                Or ibn Hanbal.

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                “WHERE ARE THEY LEARNING SUCH VIOLENCE?
                Oh that’s right, from the Quran and Hadith.”

                Again, no. You point to brutal autocratic regimes as evidence to the contrary. The Saud regime does not represent mainstream Islamic thought or scholarship. Nor does the Iranian regime. Nor does the Afghanistan regime. You are pointing to political regimes that illustrate my point about the abuse of religious texts. This is like like pointing to the U.S. and its crimes to argue that Christians learn this violence from the Bible. Apparently, you would agree with that, since in answer to my question whether you think people who cite the Bible to justify oppression and murder have a proper understanding of the Bible, you said “yes”. All I can say to that is your understanding of the Bible is just as poor as your understanding of the Quran.

              • Egoist says:

                And as expected, you divert and evade and now you dabble in no true scotsman.

                Those N countries are not practising “true” Islam, which is peaceful. They are all wrong. None of them are representative of “true” Islam.

                The whole point of this debate is whether or not Islam is founded upon, or based on, violence. I’ve quoted scripture that says just that. I’ve pointed to many regimes that base their violence on Quran and Hadith scripture.

                You denied this, and used a little hermeneutic “my interpretation is the correct one” magic and claimed the universal statements made in the passages, are somehow specific instead.

                You then claim that the examples I cited which show evidence of my point, are somehow incredibly evidence of your point, and you AGAIN invoke the red herring “But the US misinterprets the Bible too!”, as if you believe I am trying to justify or sneak in Christianity through the back door, or defend it, when in reality I argue that the US regime is not misrepresenting the bible at all, since I argue that the Bible is also pro-violence. Those who use the bible as justification for their violence, I argue are NOT misrepresenting it. Those who use the Quran or Hadith to justify their violence, are also not misrepresenting it.

                The rather amusing thing about the evolution of your responses, is that you seemingly thought your tactic of ad hominem tu quoque would work, as if I would have to retreat after being shown the Bible is being used to justify violence. Then after you realized that didn’t work, you went one more step into the absurd and now you are claiming that the Bible is also not being represented correctly when it is used to justify violence.

                This just shows your incredible ignorance of not only the Quran and Hadith, but the Bible as well. Anyone who reads the Bible can point to numerous passages that condone violence. I could rattle off dozens of passages in the OT for example that explicitly call for violence where there is none to begin with.

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                Dude, the fact that you cite the Saud regime as an example of what you call “true” Islam speaks for itself and says everything, requiring no additional comment from me.

              • Egoist says:

                The fact that you ignored the many examples given of Islamic countries that use the Quran and Hadith to justify their violence, and the fact that you deny that the Saudi regime is an example of “true” Islam, both speak for themselves.

            • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

              Dude, again, the particular brand of Wahhabism promoted by the Saud regime does not represent mainstream Islam and the majority of Muslim scholars reject this fundamentalist, extremist form of “Islam” you are talking about. Once again, your ignorance speaks for itself.

              • Ken B says:

                This is addressed to me I see. This is pretty funny since I didn’t metion wahhabism or Saudi Arabia. In fact I cited a well known Shia cleric …

                As ever I don’t ask people to trust me. Read the Koran. Read hadith. A good place to start with secondary sources is the Very Short Introduction to the Koran. Rippon has a good book, Holland has a new popular history out, I mentioned lots. Don’t trust me. But don’t trust Jeremy R Hammond either.

      • Ken B says:

        @JRH:
        Yes I am suggesting exactly that. I am suggesting, furthermore that for you to tell Muslims who have spent their lives immersed in the tales of Muhammad and the Koran that their reading is absurd, is absurd.

        I am not arguing that is the ONLY POSSIBLE reading, just that it is clearly reasonable, and clearly mainstream reading. You on the other hand are arguing it’s an absurd reading.

        Have I read the Koran? yes twice in its entirety and analysis of several sura. Have you read collections of hadith?

        • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

          Well, there most Muslims who have spent their lives immersed in the tales of Muhammad and the Koran who would agree with me that “people who cite the Quran to justify oppression and murder” do not “have a proper understanding of the Quran”, the same way as people who cite the Bible to justify oppression and murder do not have a proper understanding of the Bible.

          No, I have not read the Hadith. I also haven’t read the Talmud, but I know what the Bible says, just as I’m familiar with what the Quran says.

          • Ken B says:

            1) I suggest you read some hadith.
            2) You are *already* relying on hadith. Very few passages in the Koran come with an explanation of the ‘circumstances of revelation’ (to use the jargon). Those supposed circumstances guide all interpretation. You cite examples in your first detailed post, referring to Badr.
            3) Hadith and the talmud is a poor comparison.
            4) I do agree with you that people, like Geller, who ‘insist’ (your word) that Islam is rreedamly scarred by the violence of its founding myth are wrong. I have 2 comments on that here already.

            • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

              Do you dispute the circumstances? What information have you to the contrary?

              • Ken B says:

                1) yes I dispute the circumstances
                2) I have already cited sources. Aside form anything else, hadith differ. Cook, Crone, Rippon, Wansborough, Puin, Schacht,
                Warraq, Ohlig, Luxenburg. (And yes Bob I have read either whole books or articles by each of these, and others.)

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                Please be specific. What part of the circumstances that serve as the context for the Surah in question are you challenging, and what alternative circumstances do you propose existed?

              • Ken B says:

                1) I do not need logically to dispute any circumstances, since you are the one oclaiming that only paeaceful readings are legit.

                2) But to answer your question directly — and to repeat myself — I dispute ALL of them. Every siongle one of them. Every single hadith. We know that a huge fraction of the hadith are bogus, and we have very strong reason to suspect either that they all are or that there is no clear way to tell which are and which are not. (Mine own mildly held opinion is they are all made up. I do not insist on this.)So it is impossible to day with assurance that THESE circumstance were the REAL one and relvant circumstnaces and that therefore any inteprpretation other than peaceful ones if foreclosed.

                Plus of course many of the circumstances accepted by most muslims are not peaceful, it is very very very far from certain that the standrd account of how the Koran came to be written is right.

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                Well, if you can’t actually dispute what I’ve written about the circumstances and context of those verses, beyond simply saying you dispute them while declining to actually do so in any meaningful and substantive way, then I guess there’s nothing more for me to say.

              • Ken B says:

                You are the one insisting on a particular interpretation. I am not arguinghere yours is wrong but that others you dismiss are well justified.
                Muhammad had a
                Poet murdered formocking him and all the jewsin avillage killed, acording tomuslim tradition. Warrant enough to call the foundingmyth violent. Youranswer? Self defence!

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                No, they aren’t well justified, for the reasons I gave that you now say you aren’t disputing.

              • Ken B says:

                No. I said I do dispute them, eg historicity of your account of badr.
                You need to read some analytical history Tom Holland has a new book out, or three names I gave earlier. Early Islamic history is in fact very uncertain.

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                “I am not arguing here yours is wrong…”

                “I said I do dispute them, eg historicity of your account of badr.”

                Well, make up your mind. Do you dispute the circumstances I explained? What information have you to the contrary?

              • Ken B says:

                You are right. Unclear. Substitute ‘I do not argue your interpretation is necessarily wrong or untenable.’
                I am arguing there are a wide range of interpretations that can find justification in the sources.

    • Tel says:

      Never the less, Islam has historically spread the faith at swordpoint, and if you listen to the comments coming out of the recent Middle Eastern uprisings they fully intend to continue using violence as a tool of suppression and conversion. Just look at what is going on in Timbuktu, or read about the recent massacre in Tawergha (or maybe Tawurgha).

      When Muslims are happy to declare that people are allowed to voluntarily leave their religion without penalty (as every Christian faith allows this) then I’ll be happy to accept that Muslims have renounced violence.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

        Yes, “Islam” has historically spread the faith at swordpoint, but so has “Christianity”, which goes right to my point.

        • Brian Shelley says:

          “So has ‘Christianity'”

          Please substantiate this. I’m not saying your wrong, but my incomplete knowledge of history suggests that it was not the common method.

          • Ken B says:

            Christianity was not in its formative period (which is the period of relevance here since we are talking the life of Muhammad and the creation of the foundation myths of Islam) spread by violence. So the warrant for violence does not come directly from the reported sayings and actions of Jesus, his apostles, Paul, or any of the early (and powerless) churches. This is a real difference from Islam.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

            Surely, you must be familiar with the Crusades? The Inquisition? Colonialism?

            • Ken B says:

              Jeffery, what part of ‘formative period’ do you not understand?

              • Ken B says:

                OOPS Jeremy. My bad.

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                I was not speaking to you.

              • Ken B says:

                OK. But try it now. Mine is — if I can say this with RPM going ape — the most cogent statement of the case here: that the violence, and extolling of violence, in Islam’s founding myths and early years presents a difficulty that the corresponding periods of Christianity do not. Do you have a good response?

              • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

                Sure. “Violence” includes self-defense. As the Quran says, “Allah loveth not aggressors.”

      • ABT says:

        So is violence never acceptable? Retaliation? Oppressed fighting against an oppressor?

        Because that was the case in Arabia during the time. Notice the Prophets “military” expeditions were never against peaceful peoples. Also notice he never fought against people living in Abyssinia even after the many conquests of most of the Arabian peninsula. He found friends and allies in the non-Muslim people of Medina and neighboring tribes. So if your saying never rise up against oppressors then prepare for oppression.

        And yes Islam was spread by the sword but it was against oppressive rulers. People living under the were never forcibly compelled to accept Islam; this is consistent with the popular “no compulsion in faith” aya of the Quran. So please don’t be shallow and learn when and who the sword was used against.

        As for your modern day examples, I don’t blame the new Honda Accord for the car accident or else our prisons would be filled with literal vehicular man slaughter. There is no shortage of man killing and slaughtering one another throughout history and the reasons are endless. Selectively viewing the world to fill your own biases is mental masturbation. If I see a cloud is it a cloudy day? Sure. If the whole world is covered in clouds all the time then singling out London as a cloudy place is true but meaningless.

    • Egoist says:

      The Islamic punishment for apostasy is death.

      You do the math…

      • ABT says:

        Remind me again what the secular U.S. punishment is for treason?

        You forgot to carry the two…

        • Ken B says:

          “Remind me again what the secular U.S. punishment is for treason?”

          Harsher than the secular punishment for renouncing your citizenship. Why?

          • ABT says:

            Well there are two reasons that I have most commonly heard about why apostasy is punishable by death.
            1) There were specific cases during the time of the Prophet of people attempting to discredit Islam by “accepting” and then committing unacceptable actions, then telling everyone that this what Islam was all about and that they would leave Islam because of it. It was used by Abu Jahil’s tribe I believe (don’t quote me about the Abu Jahil thing… I don’t have my reference book infront of me). This amounted to betrayal and treason. So it was revealed to the Prophet that denouncing Islam was punishable by death. That also highlights the importances of ones reversion and that your faith and proclamations are not to be taken lightly.

            2) Beyond mischievous tactics to smear early Muslims, it is punishable by death to preserve sincerity of faith, so that Islam does not become a “casual” religion. Consider how many people you know that would call themselves Christian? How many go to church? How many have read or know verses of the Bible word for word? How many can tell you what the 10 commandments are? They still identify as Christian though and surely you cannot call them otherwise because self-identification is an essential freedom. That is why we have phrases like “practicing Christian”, which have always struck me as strange. You my digress and forget, and wax and wane in your practices but that is part of the struggle of life. A believer will stumble but they always return to their faith. Now why death if you leave? The stakes of joining are real and committing yourself to Allah is not a “causal” endeavor. So the main reason for penalty of death to apostasy is to preserve the integrity of Islam through the ages and to very clearly show how important saying “there is no God, but God” is.
            Make sense?

            • Tel says:

              So because someone somewhere once did something embarrassing to Islam, you now claim the right to kill people?

              Doesn’t quite fit my concept of a civilized society. Maybe it made sense once long ago, but mostly just seems like a method of intimidation.

            • Ken B says:

              Does it make sense to argue that Islam is non-violent by justifying the murder of apostates? Not much.

              Does it make sense to argue that Islam is areally tolerant by placing ‘the integrity of Islam’ above everything else? Not much.

              I was though pointing out a better analogue of apostasy is renouncing citizenship, not treason.

        • Tel says:

          If you want to say the religion is equivalent to national law then you have just emphasized Fadi’s point “Sharia law is a merging of politics and religion”.

          In my philosophy national law and religion don’t answer the same questions, and they don’t serve the same purpose. You can’t create morality out of law, any more than you can create charity out of taxation.

          Besides that, it’s been a very long time since anyone was condemned for treason in any Western nation I can think of. There’s a requirement for a full trial, and proof that the accused actually did something more serious than just offend a few people.

          • ABT says:

            Well it wasn’t once actually. It was a strategy used to discredit, not embarrass.

            You seem to be too biased to respect another opinion. Why are you mocking and minimizing religion as a means to make your points? It doesn’t help, you have to provide to consistency in your criticism than “just offend a few people”. That is nonsense and you are misrepresenting what I am saying. Perhaps I need to say it better.
            Apostasy is seen to discredit the entire religion when you have widespread “causal” adherence. This concept has been vindicated as evidence by your (and others) mocking tone and description of any monotheistic faith. More specifically, your opinion is obviously dismissive of anything someone will say to you when you use words like “embarrassing” or “offensive”. You clearly don’t get it. My argument had nothing to do about personal feelings. If I came off that way thats not what is meant. Don’t misrepresent just because you don’t believe.

            Finally I used treason as an illustrative example of something you could be more apt to respect and understand because I assumed you’d be hostile to ANY detailed factoids. I think that has become clear. Let me be clear, it was an analogy whereby the relation is similar but not exact. Treason is to betraying your Nation state as Apostasy is to betraying your Islam. Both of which are punishable by death. It is irrelevant the rate of enforcement. Simple I thought, but guess not….

            • Ken B says:

              ABT:” it was revealed to the Prophet that denouncing Islam was punishable by death. …. Treason is to betraying your Nation state as Apostasy is to betraying your Islam.”

              You make, unintentionally but better than that speaker at Bob’s church did, a strong case that

              ” ==>It was founded on violence. …
              ==> Sharia law is a merging of politics and religion.”

        • Egoist says:

          Can I not be against BOTH? You’re telling me this like I should be embarrassed for the punishment of death for treason, or that I have no right to criticize the punishment for apostasy in Islam as long as there is some other brutal law being enforced somewhere.

          You’re evading.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

        The Judeo-Christian punishment for sin is death.

        You do the math…

        • Ken B says:

          Paging Bob Murphy!

        • Egoist says:

          I did the math there too, which is why I am not a Judeo-Christian.

          Did you do the math for the punishment of apostasy in Islam?

          Is this your only tactic? When someone criticizes Islam, you say “Oh yeah? Well Christianity calls for this!”?

          You’re evading.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond says:

            It’s not “evading”. It’s illustrating misunderstanding of principles taught in the either religious text.

            • Ken B says:

              No, it’s a form of misdirected tu quoque. Your reaction to points made about Islam was to make points about Christianity, as if these were rebutals. You were quite clearly making an equivalence between the punishment for sin in christianity and the punishment for apostasy in Islam.

            • Egoist says:

              Interesting to hear that, when it is you who is misunderstanding religious texts.

  2. ABT says:

    Bob, you are being surprisingly misleading about Islam. You made a few pretty strong statements and then immediately moved on to talk about what inspired you (which seemed to be the reason for your post). So I figured I wouldn’t let you get away that easy and quickly respond to the three points Fadi and (you) made:

    1) Islam was founded on violence. Do you even know how Islam was first revealed? You do realize the Prophet Mohammed received the first revelation while meditating in a cave from the Angel Gabriel? You do know there were no battles for 10 years (first revelation in 610; started spreading message in Mecca in 613; raids and battles in 623 begin)? Are you not aware that the Prophet and his followers in Mecca were mocked, beaten, stoned, assaulted, threatened, embargoed by their own tribes, tortured, exiled, and yes killed by the Meccans and surrounding tribes for 10 years before any retaliation because the Prophet encouraged patience and pacifism (as instructed by Allah)? You might also be interested to know that many of the early Muslims sought and graciously received asylum from the King Negus, a Christian, of Abyssinia and did not fight or battle with the Christians? There are PLENTY more examples which I would be happy to provide regarding this topic but I’ll move on for now… so tell me how Islam was “founded” violence?

    2) Sharia law is a merging of politics and religion. This one I don’t disagree with and I actually don’t see why it should bother anyone. From what I can tell, people hear Sharia and immediately think of what despicable things the brand of Saudia indoctrinated actions that should make anyone scream insanity that are holy inconsistent with how the Prophet Muhammad and early Muslims EVER behaved. No one should ever make excuses for things like “honor killings” and I certainly do not. So if you want to commit yourself to a punchline caricature of Sharia then you (and Fadi) are just feeding into uneducated and irrational fears. Are you not aware the treaty between the Muslims who emigrated to Medina and the Jews living in Medina that guaranteed equal protection, citizenship, religious freedom in 622? Beyond early Islam, you do know where the Jews who were persecuted during the Inquisitions went for safety and freedom to practice? I think you can guess…the Islamic Ottoman Empire. I will gladly give more examples if anyone is interested.

    3) Women are subordinate. Here we go again…the same ol tired quip. Rather than begin with example-based just remember that Fadi is taught and raised in Saudia Arabia! Saudia Arabia doesn’t represent Islam… we have no Pope or governing body to send down mandates. Islam is more of a Lutheran-before-Lutheran that claims individuals are the standard bearers of interpretation, with the help of community and dialogue. Imagine if I chose to define Christianity by the evils of a single regime? No for the evidence fun section (if you have read this far then mad props to you). The popular verse from the Quran both Muslims and Non-Muslims like to use is from Surah 2 Verse 228 surrounded by revelations regarding divorce. It says women have equal rights to men in just matters but men have a higher (the jist). Well people take the men have higher as meaning dominion somehow when it really means responsibility. I feel like I have put a lot out there so I’ll just list these evidences contrary: Slandering a woman with allegations of adultery is more strongly punished than those towards men, a woman’s money is her own when they are married and a her husband has no claim over it, the Prophet NEVER struck any of his wives, both husband and wife can end a marriage, if there is divorce the husband is obligated to financially (related to the dower in some cases) assist the wife, …etc. Check Surah 2 from about verse 228 to ~239 for some divorce specifics.

    Finally, it needs to be said that Islam does not claim to be distinct from the other Abrahamic Faiths, the Prophet came to reorient Christianity and Judaism back to their monotheistic roots. The disagreement stems from the divinity of Jesus the Messiah. So I’m happy Fadi is leaving behind the polluted thought process of Saudi Arabia.

    Islam has evolved just like other major religions and I think its going through the equivalent of A Christian Dark Age. So if you can, avoid the laziness that Fadi seems to exhibit by only taking a snapshot of today. Rather I hope you will look at the story of early Islam and the life of the Prophet Muhammad.
    I know you are a busy person though so I’m not holding my breath… 😉

    • Dan says:

      As far as how I read what Dr. Murphy wrote, I don’t think he agreed with those three points by Fadi. I don’t know why he would call those points “whoppers” if he agreed with him.

    • Ken B says:

      1. There are hadith in which Muhammad beat Aisha, generally accounted hsi favourite wife. Look in Abu Muslim.
      2. ” I think [Islam is] going through the equivalent of A Christian Dark Age. ” We disagree on a lot here ABT but I think you are bang on right here. There is a civil war going on in Islam, between the forces of moderniization and the less tolerant back-t-basics crowd. I suspect you and I agree on which side we’d like to see win, but it’s just wrong to call the Saudi style a corruption of Islam. It can make a strong case from the accepted muslim sources.

      There seems to be a mindset, “oh they believe in god, it must all be consistent with other faiths, the bellicose aggressive ones must just be misinterpreting things.” This is a serious error.

      • ABT says:

        I have never seen or heard of this Hadith. Could you tell me which Book in Sahih Muslim where you claim you found this? Because that is quite an accusation.

        I’m glad to see we agree. Just to be clear, yes I can say with my evidences that I think Saudi brand to be incorrect in my opinion. The truth has a funny way of winning out in the end though, so I can believe the path that brings me a very happy marriage, fruitful life, and a sensation of truthfulness, and reject those paths that are violent, aggressive, and oppressive. I’m not the judge but I do have an obligation to fight for whats right. Basically what I’m trying to say is falsehood is inherently unstable over time and truth persists, so vindication of who is right me (and those like me) or the Saudi brand will only come well after I have left this earth.

        All I can do is preach what I believe is true…as is command to be in Surah 88 Ghashiya “Therefore do thou give admonition for thou art one to admonish. Thou art not one to manage (men’s) affairs” or in another translation “So remind them — you are only a one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them”

        • Ken B says:

          @ABT: It’s been quite a while since I read any of that. However googling just now I found http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?2607-Did-the-Prophet-(PBUH)-ever-strike-Aisha-(ra)

          I have no problem with seeing wahabism etc as wrong. I hope you do! I do think it quite wrong to say it’s a distortion or crazy, and especially wrong to think that if all those believers would just come to their senses and read the book they’d change their mind.

          Full disclosure on my part ABT: I reject all the hadith, and accept the arguments of Schacht etc. But of course the hadith are central to what Muslims believe and how they read the Koran.

          • ABT says:

            Thank you for actually sending me a source! So after looking at the particular hadith the Prophet did indeed, as narrated by Aisha, advance a physical action against Aisha; HOWEVER it is unclear what the word iahaza means. I would have to see it in arabic and for that I will do some digging. The person responding in the blog post says he shoved or slap Aisha’s chest and that it was to drive away evil influence.

            I think the respondent missed the obvious though: This action by the Prophet cannot be seen as aggressive in the least! He wasn’t angry (as narrated by his wife Aisha). Quite the contrary, he showed patience after it was revealed to him that she was sneaking up on him. He showed gentleness and consideration by the manner in which he left the sleeping area slowly and quietly. So this is not a strike of anger or beating or anything of the sort.

            I stand partially corrected (as the hadith is from one of the authentic sources) that the Prophet did lay his hand on one of his wives but by NO accounts ever beat or struck to harm out of anger or aggression.

            So all the hadith says is that you can lay your (open) hand on your wife if you have the authority of exorcising evil influences….which ain’t everyone.

            • Ken B says:

              @ABT: You’re welcome.
              Opinions vary about the wording, and — despite what JRH says — the interpretation. (I think yours is strained but it’s not unreasonable.)

              As this is WAY too specialized for this blog I’ll just leave it there, with the disclaimer that I do not think any of the hadith are actually reliable for reasosn the curious my learn from among other sources several of ibn Warraq’s books.

        • Ken B says:

          @ABT: I have been careful not address “whopper” 1 until now, but it seems relevant here. Yes, there was a lot of violence in the founding of Islam and the career of Muhammad. That hsitory can be and ius used to justify aggression. But that no more implies that Islam is irredeemably violent than the violent origins of Protestantism or the violence in the career of Calvin say means modern Protestantism must be violent. There are strains and schools in all major religions. AS ABT notes, religions evolve.

  3. Ken B says:

    “I think there was at least one other whopper like the above”

    You think these are all whoppers? Do you know what a woman must prove to get a dicorce in most versions of sharia for instance? Or is this just another “we’re all believers together” thing?

    Do you know how sharia is principally derived?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Ken B. wrote:

      You think these are all whoppers? Do you know what a woman must prove to get a dicorce in most versions of sharia for instance? Or is this just another “we’re all believers together” thing?

      Again Ken B., you need to take your self-professed charity in interpreting others, and apply it to me once in a while (preferably on Sundays). I was saying 99% of the people sitting in my church yesterday probably think that in the US, it’s too easy for people to get divorced. So it’s weird for Fadi to horrify us about Saudi Arabia, by pointing out that it’s hard for a woman to get a divorce.

      • Ken B says:

        Wow Bob. Because what you *said* was Fadi made you uncomfortable with several statements, which you seem to describe as “whoppers”. That section of your post says nothing about your congregation or their views on divorce. It sounds on a plain and yes sympathetic reading like you are calling this
        “==> Women are subordinate to the men. Women can’t even get a divorce very easily”
        a whopper.

        Are you? And if so I repeat my relevant question above.

        Same for the nature of sharia question.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Ken B. the fact that you keep asking me about divorce, despite me clarifying it (I believe) 3 times now, classifies you as a troll. Perhaps you don’t even realize you are a troll. You’re like Bruce Willis from the Sixth Sense.

          • Ken B says:

            I’m asking you about ‘whopper’. You clarified in an update that you mean something by the word few of us mean, and not suggested by your post.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Oh…my…gosh. Ken, it was a whopper FOR FADI TO LIST THIS AS AN OBJECTION TO ISLAM. By “whopper” I mean “a big doo-doo to step in.”

              • Ken B says:

                I know you do Bob. Now I know having read the update. But that’s not the normal meaning of the word you know. I checked 4 online dictionaries to be sure. I checked thesaurius.com too. If you say of a statement that it’s a whopper then you are calling it a big lie. Certainly that’s what Dan read too. You MISSPOKE. You meant something like ‘a great irony’. Or ‘a whopper of an irony’.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                That’s funny, the first definition here says “something extremely large of its kind.” The second definition says a lie.

                Oh wait, I forgot I’m not supposed to feed trolls.

              • Ken B says:

                And how precisely are those 3 short statements particularly large.

                And note the example too. A ‘whopper OF’ a thing is a big thing, but a statement that is just a whopper is a lie.

                Some dictionaries list the lie definition first Bob, not that the order matters much here. it’s the applicability that matters.

        • Gene Callahan says:

          ” That section of your post says nothing about your congregation or their views on divorce. ”

          Yes, but some of us are aware of context.

  4. Ken B says:

    Bob: ” I believe faith in the Christian God is actually the most reasonable conclusion … Maybe you like my reasons, maybe you don’t, but please don’t accuse me of firing off a two-sentence syllogism.”

    I don’t like them and I take up the challenge here http://incorrections.blog.com/?p=44

    • Egoist says:

      Neat, another creepy cult of personality website to add to the list of those I will purposefully not visit.

      Your conversion to Christianity seems to be still well in development.

  5. joeftansey says:

    “For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

    Sorry, it’s non-topical to the OP, but I thought this passage was a little rich. Christ/god are in the unique position of knowing, for certain, the rules of the universe. So it’s a lot harder for regular mortals to be christian than it is for Christ to be christian.

    But god doesn’t want you to play on easy-mode like tax collectors, no no no. You have to play on hard mode even though he himself is playing on the easiest possible mode.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Joe Tansey wrote:

      But god doesn’t want you to play on easy-mode like tax collectors, no no no. You have to play on hard mode even though he himself is playing on the easiest possible mode

      Joe, you think it’s the “easiest possible” way to live, to be mocked and then nailed to a piece of wood where you suffocate to death over the course of hours?

      • Ken B says:

        Now that’s an ironic observation to make on a thread touting the compatibility of Islam and the gospels!

      • joeftansey says:

        “Joe, you think it’s the “easiest possible” way to live, to be mocked and then nailed to a piece of wood where you suffocate to death over the course of hours?”

        If you know with absolute certainty that you’re going to heaven, then yes. I would go spend my life in gitmo if I knew god wanted me to. Easiest decision ever.

        If you do not know you will go to heaven, then death is a hefty commitment indeed! Just losing a limb would be asking a lot.

        • Ken B says:

          I recall a big contentious debate on some blog about just this point. Some atheists making the point that Christians don’t seem to ever follow the logic of the infinite value of heaven and the infinite negative value of hell to its conclusion. Like jft just did.

          • joeftansey says:

            They can’t even take pascal’s wager?

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Joe Tansey wrote:

          If you know with absolute certainty that you’re going to heaven, then yes. I would go spend my life in gitmo if I knew god wanted me to. Easiest decision ever.

          This explains why everyone is in perfect shape, and has $5 million saved by retirement age.

          • Egoist says:

            Where did God promise eternal happiness in exchange for those things?

            It’s easy to be poor, and “blessed are the poor.”

          • joeftansey says:

            I don’t get it either.

            “This explains why everyone is in perfect shape, and has $5 million saved by retirement age.”

            Are you hypothesizing that “insincere” christians just have a really high time preference?

            • Richard Moss says:

              I am pretty sure what Bob means is that many people believe that if they perform certain tasks, they will achieve certain ends. If they work out they will be fit. If they save money they will enjoy a prosperous retirement. There are no ‘esoteric’ laws people, being mere mortals, are struggling to understand in order to achieve these ends.

              But, that doesn’t make it an ‘easy decision’ for people to perform the tasks required to achieve these ends.

              Many people do not perform the tasks because of the effort involved in doing so.

              • Ken B says:

                You mean somehting like ‘the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak’? I can see how that might explains Bob’s fillip. The thing is even on those terms the argument doesn’t work. It isn’t infirmity that prevents us from being fit or saving. Even in that case it’s the *spirit* that’s being weak.

              • joeftansey says:

                Those are all finite examples. I might not save money if it means delaying gratification now. But I would delay all my earthly gratification for INFINITE AND ETERNAL SUPERBLISS.

              • Richard Moss says:

                Joe,

                you wrote “I might not save money…now”

                Well, you might not if you view the cost (forging current consumption) as exceeding the benefit (wealthy retirement). But, the point is, people do think the benefits outweigh the costs, yet still do not pay those costs. And, this has nothing to do with a less than full understanding of the relationship between the benefit and the cost.

                I don’t see why this isn’t possible in a case where the benefit is infinite and eternal, and the costs are considered worth the benefit.

                Ken B.,

                Not sure I follow; are you saying that knowing a benefit exceeds its cost, but choosing not to incur the cost for that benefit, can’t be a moral failing?

              • Ken B says:

                @Richard Moss: I am saying it can be a moral failing.I am saying that — which is a weakness of spirit — is more likely than it is a result of infirmity — a weakness of flesh. But that’s not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is perfectly decent believers who don’t seem to factor in the infinite cost, not those eho don’t see it.

              • joeftansey says:

                “But, the point is, people do think the benefits outweigh the costs, yet still do not pay those costs”

                I deny this. People may say they know the benefits outweigh the costs in order to appear sensible to their peers, but their action demonstrates that they value smoking crack more highly than a stable future.

  6. Ken B says:

    O sweet mother of mercy Bob, you now say when you call a contentious statement about Islam a ‘whopper’ you don’t mean you’re calling it a big lie? You mean you’re just calling applicable to Christianity too!????

    The word for that is Big Mac, not Whopper.

    • Egoist says:

      O sweet mother of mercy Bob

      Haha, an “atheist” expresses his emotions by appealing for mercy from the dead mother of Jesus.

      you now say when you call a contentious statement about Islam a ‘whopper’ you don’t mean you’re calling it a big lie?

      Whopper doesn’t only mean “big lie.”

      The word can also mean “A thing that is extremely or unusually large.”

      You know, like the difference between what is, and your conception of it.

      • Ken B says:

        Hey, if a believer can cite logic I can cite god!
        🙂

        I’m an atheist but I grew up in a Christian culture after all. Nor do I disavow it. And i believe I’ve mentioned, I almost certainly listen to mass more often than almost anyone else on this board.

        • Egoist says:

          Hey, if a believer can cite logic I can cite god!

          Glad to see you actually think this is a game of individual egos, and that logic is but a means that can be destroyed at will, rather than a necessary rule.

  7. Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

    Prior to the dismantling of the Islamic Courts in Somalia around 2009, private law (oftentimes funded by businessmen looking to provide order for their business) was based on Sharia and the local Xeer. It was actually quite successful (and moderate), until the Transitional National Government took over in Mogadishu and the moderate elements of the Union of Islamic Courts joined the TNG.

  8. ABT says:

    Well judging by your updated to this post, it looks like I misunderstood your post. If your point was to comment on Fadi’s hypocritical analysis then I certainly didn’t get that from the post … except for the one paragraph. You have to admit you could have been a little clearer, Bob.

    So my bad on the misinterpretation.

    Full disclosure, I am a Muslim and it should be clarified that Muslim just means one who willingly submits to God, which sounds an awful lot like what the Prophet Jesus said in response to Satan when he was being offered the “kingdoms of the world” in Matthew 4: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him alone”. Muslims make this proclamation several times a day and upon reverting to Islam. So you got it right when you said the fundamental disagreement is regarding Jesus’s divinity (or as I see it, lack thereof). There is an amazing example of how to live in the Prophet Jesus thats for sure.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      ABT wrote:

      If your point was to comment on Fadi’s hypocritical analysis then I certainly didn’t get that from the post … except for the one paragraph. You have to admit you could have been a little clearer, Bob.

      Sure, I could have been clearer. But what’s interesting is that you and Ken B. are accusing me of being unclear *in opposite directions*. It was “obvious” to you, ABT, that I was accusing Muslims of those things. And it was “obvious” to Ken B. that I was saying Fadi was lying, when he accused Muslims of those things.

      No matter what, Ken B., you should be sending dictionary links to ABT, right? He obviously has been using “whopper” the wrong way his whole life, too, just like me.

      • Ken B says:

        And it’s ‘obvious’ to you we’re both wrong. How simple the world is some days.

        But I think ABT just more or less glided over your whopper remark, and so took the rest of it as you speaking. People make that kind of error all the time. But we can ask the source here. ABT?

        You can keep digging Bob, I’m game. But Occam says you made a simple mistake and won’t ‘fess up.

        • ABT says:

          Meh. Semantics bores me. Bob has made it clear in the remarks what he meant. Thats what I’ll go with and I conceded that I misunderstood him. No sense in beating a dead horse. Bob clarified in the update and the comments…. I said “oh well I misunderstood or it was generally unclear” and moved on. Either way I would say go with the clarification, Ken and stop agonizing about the less lucid version.

          My misunderstanding was no predicated on the word “whopper” though.

          • Ken B says:

            Adroitly put! And شكرا

  9. Egoist says:

    It was only because his parents didn’t want him doing that, that he went to school instead.

    This is so crucial. If you want “good” people, it starts with “good” parenting.

    I feel the need to bring this up because I recently got into a Facebook tussle over a photo showing a picture of the Bible with the caption, “Proof that God exists,” next to a picture of a comic book saying, “Proof that Spiderman exists.”

    Speaking of photos of Jesus, have you heard of this?

    http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/elderly-woman-ruins-19th-century-fresco-restoration-attempt-191155838–abc-news-topstories.html

  10. Ken B says:

    Bob, ‘whopper’ is an enormity.

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

  11. Matt Flipago says:

    I read you post, and understood what you meant by whopper. I think some people just never learned contextual reading skills.

  12. DT says:

    You might enjoy Ray Comfort’s free book on the myth of the modern Gospel message:

    freewonderfulbook.com

    Also, a good clip on preaching Christ to the Arabic world:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xhsE4VW_GY&feature=plcp

  13. Ken B says:

    This article is worth reading on some of the points raised above. A taste:

    So let’s get it straight: Revolutionary Islamists are real Muslims with a big base of support who want to impose repressive Sharia dictatorships. They draw on actual Islamic doctrine and can argue that their views are legitimately those of the Koran and the other holy texts. They are not a small minority but a growing mass movement that in places either has majority support or can whip the majority into line. Telling the truth about what is in Islamic texts is an intellectual duty. Showing how radicals use these texts is simple scholarly integrity.

    But that doesn’t mean that all of Islam is inevitably radical. It doesn’t mean that the revolutionary Islamists are right and all their Muslim opponents are wrong. It doesn’t mean we don’t have courageous allies among Muslims. And they are far more courageous than the posturing Western ignoramuses who romanticize the revolutionary Islamist murderers.

    Link http://rubinreports.blogspot.ca/2012/08/where-are-muslim-anti-islamists-theyre.html

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “And they are far more courageous than the posturing Western ignoramuses who romanticize the revolutionary Islamist murderers. ”

      And who don’t exist!

  14. Ken B says:

    @egoist: when you have somespare time a funexercise might be to select passages frommeinkampff and explain them as self defence. Kill alll thejewsin a town a dcall them the aggressors. You have been given a model to work from in thisthread.

    Those of us who argue that religion blunts morality have seen an impressive displayhere don’t you think?

    • Egoist says:

      JRH’s ignorance of religious texts is so profound that he actually said those who use the bible to justify violence “do not have a proper understanding of it.”

      I guess when Deuteronomy 22 calls for non-virgins to be killed on their wedding day, this is also “self-defense”.

      You say religion blunts morality. I’ll add that it blunts thinking in general.

      • Ken B says:

        Its an odd argument, saying that expanding self defence to allow murdering children, whole villages, and rape, is actually peaceful.

        • Egoist says:

          You are rather talented at the art of understatement. I often find myself unable to be as reserved.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        ” I’ll add that it blunts thinking in general.”

        From a man who has never encountered thought! But he has heard about it.

        • Egoist says:

          Coming from you, that is a compliment.

Leave a Reply to Dan

Cancel Reply