If it is true that “speaking the truth in love” and “speaking truth to power” are both virtuous pursuits (the latter being a secular adaptation of the former, biblical precept), then it follows that the bland tolerance of falsehood is very close kin to contempt (especially the know-nothing, ‘co-exist’ variety — you’ve no doubt seen the license plates — that imagines all religions to be roughly equal… and equally corrosive).
In that spirit, then, it’s worth reading Part I and Part II of a synopsis of a television show by Coptic priest Zakaria Botros. (Emphasis and links added.)
…in Islam, it seems that Muhammad’s honor is to be more zealously guarded than even Allah’s. To prove this, he quoted from a famous Arabic manual of law called Kitab Ahkam Al-Koran (“Book of Koranic Rulings”) by the famous scholar al-Jassas: according to this manual, the apostate must not be killed until he has been given several chances to repent and return to Islam. This same book, however, clearly states that whoever offends the name of the prophet (Muhammad) must be killed right where he stands, not given a chance to repent or take back his words… [Thus, said Botros] “In Islam, Muhammad has a higher place than Allah.”
…how does one differentiate prophets from false prophets? [Botros] came up with three prerequisites of prophet-hood…
- A prophet typically receives direct revelations from God
- A prophet usually does just that—prophesy, usually about the future
- A prophet’s claim to prophethood is usually supported by miracles
…“So, what about Muhammad?” asked Botros; “Did God speak to him direct[ly]? Not at all; instead, he was visited by a creature [that is, a created, lesser being], who Muhammad himself was convinced was a demon or Jinn… [and] what prophecy did Muhammad bring?” He then quoted from the Koran verses which plainly indicate that Muhammad had no inkling of the future (see 6:50 and 7:188)… “So,” asked again, rather dryly, the Coptic priest, “what miracles did Muhammad perform?” …the Koran… flatly declares that even though the people demanded a miracle from Muhammad, the only one he could provide was the Koran [itself].
three characteristics of prophet-hood…
- Lead a righteous life in order to be a good example before others
- Make sacrifices for others, not vice-versa
- Dedicate one’s life to the service of God
…After reading the relatively long quote from [Sheikh al-Islam’s Minhaj Al Sunna Al Nabawayya], Taymiyya, Botros put his book down, looked directly at the screen, and flatly said that everyone of those negative characteristics indicative of false-prophethood mentioned by Taymiyya in fact apply to Muhammad. As but one example, he pointed to the fact that, even though the Taymiyya excerpt condemned lying, Muhammad himself justified lying in three circumstances—during war, to reconcile people, and husband to wife.
As for oppressive qualities of false prophets, Botros, reading from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, revealed to the viewers that Muhammad, after raiding innocent villages, would take into concubinage women he found desirable, and then send off to be sold in the market less than attractive women as well as children. With the money he’d make from this slave trade, he would purchase war horses and weaponry, in order to conquer other villages…
Botros next considered what he called “Muhammad’s sexual escapades.” After listing them… he proceeded to read from Kitab Al Tabaqat A Kubra, quoting a Muhammadan hadith, wherein [Mohammed] said “Of this world, the most things Allah has made me love are”—here Botros interjected with “What? Salvation of souls?! Doing good to others? What?!” only to continue quoting Muhammad’s conclusion—“women and perfume,” the latter to lure the former.
As for the second characteristic Botros listed as being indicative of prophethood—making sacrifices on behalf of others—the Coptic priest listed some biblical examples, such as Paul saying “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved” (2 Cor 12:15). He also pointed to the “ultimate sacrifice” of Jesus… “So, what ’sacrifices’ did Muhammad make?” [Botros asked] He confessed he knew of none, but instead read various quotes of Muhammad asking others to sacrifice themselves for him and his religion—in the jihad and as shuhada—promising them a sensual heaven in return, one filled with sexual orgies and rivers of wine.
He next moved on to the final point, the final characteristic of a prophet: dedicating one’s life to God, exhibited by a life of good deeds, advocating peace, and above all love…
“Well, what of Muhammad? What was his approach to making humanity worship their Maker?” Botros insisted that Muhammad, doing away with grace and love as typified by the New Testament, tried instead to usher mankind back to an era of law and fear. “Instead of love and mercy, Muhammad brought death and punishments.”
As example, he read from al-Shinqiti’s works an entire chapter dedicated to proving that in Islam, whoever refuses to perform the obligatory prayers should be killed. Writes Shinqiti: “Those who refuse to pray, stand above them with a sword or stick, and command them—‘Pray!’—and if they refuse, smite them until they either pray or die.”
Finally, Father Zakaria Botros closed the program with an overall comparison of the life and deeds of Jesus and Muhammad, the founders of the two largest religions… “Jesus came to save souls, Muhammad came to sacrifice the souls of others in order to create a worldly empire for himself.”
H/T: The Black Cordelias
Yeap.
By: Foxfier on November 11, 2008
at 12:35 pm
uh oh. Someone is going to be pi**ed off…
By: Halfwise on November 11, 2008
at 2:35 pm
Being pi**ed off: common, expected.
Choosing to react with grace and thoughtful, fact-based rebuttal: priceless.
By: ultraguy on November 11, 2008
at 4:10 pm
I think that it is dangerous to read writings about the Qua’ran as equally as it is to read authors who write about items in the bible, since it always then comes down to personal opinion, perception and viewpoint..
I view both writings the same way.
I don’t read authors who have ‘theoligical explatives of what this and that mean” simply because it’s idiotic.
I have read both of the books and all the books that make up the Talmud, and have found one interesting notion.
Other than the fact they are obviously different books, if one were to rip out the similar sections, no one would be able to tell them apart.
Not even 1%
I find that the errors are not in the writings themselves, but in the interpretative nature of the leaders whom teach their desired meanings of these writings.
Each of the Islamic denominations have different viewpoints on sections of scripture.
However, so do all the different denominations of the Christian scriptures.
You might find it interesting to know that there are only 5 distinct Muslim denominations, and over 1,200 Christian denominations (and that only in the continental United States with 1,000’s more throughout the world).
So when it comes to “interpretative rendition” all writers – including myself – have the potential to inflect our own opinions, instantly making any truth of it, questionable.
However, there is one thing that all the books mentioned in this comment have in common.
They all command that we test all the things we’re told with the scriptures which are used as the foundation of whichever interpreter.
As God states… test all things.
By: James Van Leuvaan on November 12, 2008
at 11:43 am
Incidentally, you might find it interesting to note that in cemetery… uhh i mean seminary schools (heh, my sense of humour sorry) it isn’t the bible that is studied, as much as the different personalities throughout history and their interpretations of that bible, and then a leaning of “this is what we believe” methodology, bringing about again, an instant guarantee that there is error within that teaching and interpretation.
It is this man’s opinion that only God, and only by His spirit can anyone actually, truly and fully understand what God actually means through scripture.
As it was in the beginning so shall it be in these days.
By: James Van Leuvaan on November 12, 2008
at 11:46 am
“Not even 1%”
1% that’s wrong can make something 100% incorrect. Consider, for instance, an aircraft in which just 1% of the parts are faulty. Three hours out, over the Pacific–if one makes it that far–one may be 100% dead as a result.
Or take another angle on it. If one posits a true and solid standard (let’s use an American $1 bill by way of analogy, though in the current climate, I recognize the analogy has some very serious flaws), then someone attempting to counterfeit that one true standard is faced with a choice: make the counterfeit seem as close as possible to the original (highly durable green ink, special watermarks, high-quality paper, correct size, etc.) or make it stand out (e.g., smiley face on orange cardboard)?
Point being: given the existence of God, his revelation through His only Son, Jesus Christ and the veracity of what that Son told us about hell and demons and Satan, what would Satan do if he wanted to set up a false religion and confuse people? How would he go about getting them three hours out from land before they found out they’d been duped?
By: ultraguy on November 12, 2008
at 12:06 pm
that was my point though
if it’s 1% incorrect, then it is obviously 100% incorrect on any angle. If you were to use a X Y scale of measurement then the difference from the starting point is so far removed upon the expansion of that point.
By: James Van Leuvaan on November 12, 2008
at 12:31 pm
first off, i would like to thank u for the thought provocations. Secondly, I acknowledge the validity of what has been said here and accept as premise – the logic.
[thanks for stopping by. - ed.]
but in reference to something stated , I wonder what we really know about what jesus really said.
[I know a great deal; see below -ed.]
The bible we know today has passed through generations of multiple translations and indeterminable interpretations.
[Which is why it's been important to check back with the original texts, in their original languages. I strongly recommend you check out Lee Strobel's site, though there are many others with strong academic credentials who have investigated these issues. Short take: it's pretty easy to get back to reliable texts that were written down within 20-30 years of Jesus' death and resurrection for most books in the Bible and not more than 50 years for the worst of them. And except for a few punctuation marks and minor words here and there, they agree with each other. ed.]
Even a 1%, and then another1%, and again 1% multileveled shift /twist /or even obliteration can as u have pointed out, create a whole new beast.
[Indeed. This is a common misconception. It is not, in fact, what has happened with the Bible. Instead, the Biblical texts were reproduced far more often than any other text dating from that period in history. For the most common non-biblical texts, the ratio is more than 10 to 1. In other words, if you don't believe the Bible, you should not bother believing much of anything from ancient history. Rather than creating error, the massive, unprecedented proliferation initially, of the oral stories, and later, of the written stories and later still, the canonical compilation we know as the Bible tended to correct any flaws. - ed.]
The one thing about the Qur’an is, it is still in the original language and unchanged, thus allowing us as an individual to interpret. Of course we need to know Arabic. (which I don’t).
[This is misleading. It is asserted by islamic scholars that only they hold the keys to the qur'an and thus they can, by their own rules, take pot-shots at the Bible while deflecting any leveled at the qur'an ('you just don't appreciate the subtleties in Arabic and if you did you'd see it our way'). It's not a level playing field. Those same rules also have the effect of discouraging the individual believer from independent interpretation. Furthermore, just because it is in the same language does not mean it is unchanged. If that alone were sufficient to establish authenticity, they you'd have to apply the same logic to the Bible. In fact, the Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic texts we have from very old manuscripts give the Bible just as strong an argument on that point and much stronger arguments on other points. Being in the same language is just one element of historical authenticity. Again, I urge anyone honestly curious and serious about this question to take a look at Lee Strobel's site. - ed.]
still whenever we read a transliteration of the Qur’an it is just one persons interpretation of the original so, I believe, it is still closer to the original thoughts presented than any bible available today. I don’t proclaim to know who was or wasn’t a prophet but a book that changed the world 1400 years ago and is still affecting millions today in its original form is worthy of a look to me.
[If you read the Bible and seriously and open-heartedly but hard-headedly consider the logical, historical, archeological and copious other lines of evidence for its authenticity and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in that process, you will no longer have any doubt as to who and who was not a prophet, and who is the Only Son of the One True God and who is a late-to-the-game, demonic created being who would love nothing better than to destroy him (but who, through the cross, cannot). I pray that you (and others) take that step and allow yourself to be changed by Jesus. God bless!! - ed.]
By: dawne on December 7, 2008
at 1:47 pm
There is some thought that the Gospel According to Matthew may have been written in Aramaic, the Greek translation being the only surviving text we have, although the Assyrian church has the entire Bible in Aramaic, and insists that their Matthew is not translated back from the Greek. They may be right. However, the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek, copied and widely disseminated, and those copies copied. When the Council of Nikea was establishing the canon, in 325, they used a pretty sophisticated standard of scholarship. Did a book have an Apostolic attribution? Was it widely accepted? Was it early? This may seem like a variant of the the first question but the Bishops assembled saw it as a separate issue. Each question tended to reinforce the first, if the answers were yes. That is, if it was widely disseminated, it was likely to be early, because it takes tome to spread a hand-copied book around. If it was Apostolic, it had to be early. The Bishops rejected the Shepherd of Hermas, although, in areas where it was read, it was a sentimental favorite. They recognized that The Gospel of Thomas had all sorts of late second century markers, and, contrary to the movie version of history, the Gnosticism it expresses was a second century phenomenon. The Council’s chief task was to deal with Arianism. Gnosticism was, by that time, a dead letter.
Historians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries thought of the Bible texts as written a hundred or more years after the events that they describe Thus, they recount “legend.” The British overthrow of the Turkish Empire renewed contact of the West with the Eastern Mediterranean churches, and we became aware that, in the second century, when the Gospels and Epistles were allegedly written, people were already writing commentaries and very heated tracts advocating for one interpretation or another, on those books, from a hundred years earlier. St Ignatius studied under Polycarpos, who studied under John, and Polycarpos and Ignatius had a good deal to say about the background and provenance of several New Testament books. E.g. that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, and wrote the story as Peter remembered it.
The earlier view is that the Church emerged slowly in the shadows, operating underground,because of persecution. That might be how we’d have done it. What has emerged in the past ninety years has been a picture of a Church that operated openly, defying persecution, teaching many of its young members to read, including women, who copied many of the texts, in a foreshadowing of later monastic life. The Church brought the changing preference for folio books, over the earlier forms, scrolls.The confusion among scholars in 1780 or 1820 might be understandable. The deliberate dissemination of what we now know to be a misunderstood view of history is a ploy by the Enemy, who does not desire anything good for Dawne, or anyone else whose soul he can ensnare. Jesus is waiting to receive you, and what He desires is not evil, but very, very good. People have tried to fool us. We do not need to keep fooling ourselves.
By: Michael on December 10, 2008
at 8:06 pm
[...] Israel’s enemies entails a collective bet, on America’s part, that the God of Israel does not exist, that the [...]
By: Shocked, SHOCKED, That Hillary Would Support Hamas « New Wineskins on February 27, 2009
at 6:46 am