The decline of the dollar - The EU and Arab League - And Canadians watching British-Arabia!
Just three things of interest, very important things…
In the latest example that the U.S. dollar just ain’t what it used to be, some shops in New York City have begun accepting euros and other foreign currency as payment for merchandise.
“We had decided that money is money and we’ll take it and just do the exchange whenever we can with our bank,” Robert Chu, owner of East Village Wines, told Reuters television.
The increasingly weak U.S. dollar, once considered the king among currencies, has brought waves of European tourists to New York with money to burn and looking to take advantage of hugely favorable exchange rates.
The EU High Representative for the Common Foreign And Security Policy, Javier Solana yesterday expressed his conviction that the Maltese initiative to hold the first ever European Union-Arab League conference will be kept up.
Speaking to The Times on his arrival at the conference venue at the Westin Dragonara in St Julians, Mr Solana said he was pleased to be here for this important meeting.
“After having met with the Arab League on many occasions in different formats, now is the first time we meet at a specific meeting between the Arab League and the 27 EU member states.
“We like the idea very much and now we have to see how we can cooperate in this format.”
Asked what he expected to come out of the meeting, Mr Solana said there were no specific issues that had to be dealt with. What was more important was to strengthen cooperation between the EU and the Arab League.
The United Kingdom, from common language and shared heritage, offers us our best window into what is happening in Europe. This is especially so when we try to come to grips — if we have the courage to do so — with the historically sudden irruption, and rapid spread, of Islam across Europe.
There are parallel developments in all the nations on the Continent: high immigration rates from Islamic countries, comparatively high birth rates among that immigrant population, and the radicalization of their young in Wahabi mosques financed by the oil wealth of Arabia. But for many English-speaking Canadians, it is the British experience that brings the phenomenon home.
The demographic issue is at the centre of much controversy. There can be little dispute over the statistical facts, which are quite dramatic, and as exhilarating from an Islamist point of view, as they are ominous for those who fear the loss of everything associated with western civilization. For, owing to the prior triumph of the leftist “multicultural” ideology, which holds that one “culture” is as good as another, and therefore it is wrong to preserve our own way of life, there is considerable opposition to discussing these facts.
We have seen this in Canada, where journalists Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have been hauled before “human rights tribunals” — kangaroo courts in which defendants are stripped of all the traditional protections of court law, and where judgments may be passed against them by people with no legal qualifications on the basis of whim and hearsay.
Mr. Steyn, in particular, stands accused of having openly discussed demographic questions. Mr. Levant stands accused of having published materials the mainstream media had been cowed into suppressing by the fear of Islamist violence.
In both cases, the journalists are being prosecuted by Muslims who advocate the imposition of Shariah law, but are using an apparatus that was designed by the Left for the persecution of those expressing right-wing views.
The British system works differently, and the media in Britain remain more robust than the media in Canada, and willing to report things that would be studiously ignored in a Canadian newsroom. On the other hand, by sheer force of numbers, and the intimidation value of several Islamist atrocities on London’s streets, the “fear factor” in Britain is much higher, and the Labour government has proved much more responsive to Islamist demands.
The chief, and most consistent Islamist demand, is for the imposition of Shariah law, at least for Muslims, but ideally by the whole state. In fact, many Shariah courts are already operating informally in Britain, dealing mostly with routine civil questions of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and financial disputes, but sometimes with crime. For instance, a Shariah court in the London district of Woolwich was allowed recently — apparently with the co-operation of police — to pass judgment on unnamed Somali youths in a knifing incident. (The assailants were released in return for an apology to their victim.)
In various other ways, Shariah is being recognized, semi-formally. For instance, although bigamy remains nominally a crime in Britain, the Labour government has approved new social provisions by which extra welfare payments, council housing privileges, and tax benefits may be claimed by polygamous households, and the cash benefits to which the extra wives are now entitled may be paid directly into the account of their husband.
Related:
- SAUDI PUBLICATIONS ON HATE IDEOLOGY INVADE AMERICAN MOSQUES by Freedom House the Center for Religious Freedom (Pdf file)
I have a link that is a critique of Wahhabism from an Islamic point of view. Interesting to note is that during Ottoman Rule the British backed Wahhabism according to the article provided…
[...]their false love of religion traces back to a dajjal who went by the name of Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab, who was a man sponsered, educated, paid, and helped by the British to eradicate the Uthmani (a.k.a. Ottoman) empire, as well as the rest of the Muslim ‘Ummah from within.
I may add more links, but this will do for now!
Atonement attacked - Brian McLaren
The best advice anyone gave me was if there be any teaching, Christian or otherwise, that diminishes the “work of the cross” and the need for blood atonement that teaching is straight from the pits of Hell. The work of the cross is our propitiation to appease of God because of our sin.
The bible is a Jewish book and we must understand the atonement within Jewish thought.
Jesus was pierced for our transgressions and anyone who does not understand this has not had their conscience convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Why does this matter??? Read “Does Brian McLaren Have a Generous View of Hell?”
British Law + Sharia Law, never the twain shall meet. Or can it?
Just quickly, this….
Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, who said that it “seems inevitable” that elements of Sharia Muslim law would be incorporated into British legislation.
Almost instantly the comments have been greeted with shock and condemnation from nearly every corner of British society. Christian groups, secular groups, the head of the equality watchdog, several high-profile Muslims and MPs from all parties have all strongly condemned the statement. A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this morning, “sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.”
The essential question is whether Muslims living in Britain should have a different set of laws that apply to them that are in accordance with Sharia law. The issue is especially pertinent in divorce proceedings, which under Sharia law are extremely strict and not very favorable to women. (Read more here)
Related:
Jesusanity - What is that?
Those who visit this blog are probably aware that I have previously posted much about the Atonement and the implications of how one understands it. This issue is very important to the Church, it always has been and it always will be. Well, at least it should be. Anyway, I came across a post written by Albert Mohler called ‘Christianity vs. Jesusanity — The Postmodern Temptation‘. In that post he speaks about the postmodern (ugghhh, soooo sick of that word!!!!) attempt to humanise Jesus.
Of this is writes…
While postmodern literary theorists debate the meaning of “totalizing metanarratives,” at the level of popular piety we see the widespread substitution of “spirituality” for biblical Christianity.
This is exactly what we are seeing! The following quote is from authors Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace who argue that popular culture is on a quest “to unseat the biblical Christ”. In a book called ‘Dethroning Jesus‘ the authors recognise that there is an ongoing attempt to reduce Jesus into a dethroned humanitarian teacher…
“Jesusanity” is a coined term for the alternative story about Jesus. Here the center of the story is still Jesus, but Jesus as either a prophet or a teacher of religious wisdom. In Jesusanity, Jesus remains very much Jesus of Nazareth. He points the way to God and leads people into a journey with God. His role is primarily one of teacher, guide, and example. Jesus’ special status involves his insight into the human condition and the enlightenment he brings to it. There is no enthronement of Jesus at God’s side, only the power of his teaching and example. In this story, the key is that Jesus inspires others, but there is no throne for him. He is one among many – the best, perhaps, and one worthy to learn from and follow.
Check out the post by Albert Mohler and see what you think. I for one am glad that there are some authors willing to lay it all out and stick to good clear biblical exegesis!
Previous posts on Blood Atonement.
Atonement Praxis
Recently there has been a bit of a buzz around the blogosphere concerning the ‘Atonement’, I have even posted a few things on this very subject. And in doing some research on it I have come across certain theories called the “Eucharistic praxis” and the “Atonement Imagery”.
As I understand it, “Atonement Imagery” is not so much about the suffering of the Son but more about understanding the passion and injustice done to a man. It becomes less about the divinity of Christ, as they often refer to that as a mythical story – and more about the historical man Jesus. To understand the crucifixion primarily in this way you may fail to see the whole of Jesus, the God/man.
If the atonement is brought down to the level of praxis and community only, then the divinity of Christ could very well be lost. As a result, the injustice of the cross against a man is exalted above the Penal Substitution act and this is because the emphasis is the man being punished by God the so called ‘child abuser’. If the divinity of Him is neglected, this could ultimately result in an unbalance in the understanding of the triune nature of God because man is amplified.
Because of this — [h]e that being Jesus and the work of the cross (not the capitalised [H]e) — encourages us to be co-creative (popular in the feminized theory. An Examination of the Problems of Inclusive Language in the Trinitarian …By Thomas J. Scirghi) in the struggle against the social injustice of this sacrifice that was meted out on someone who did not actually deserve it. More importantly, once you start reducing the atonement to mean ‘atone-man-ment’, you may fail to understand the gravity of mankind’s sin and the part we all have played in the crucifixion. You cannot begin to address the first things; that being the problem of sin, by using a “Community Atonement Praxis” alone. Rather, you should start at the point of ‘in the beginning God’ and try to grasp — as much as the fallible mind can — the Holiness and Righteousness of God and that mankind clearly falls short of His image. That imagery is the starting point for vertical reconciliation between man and his maker. “Atonement Imagery/Praxis” seems to be the horizontal reconciliation of the community; reconciliation between mankind.
I have just finished reading something from Scott McKnight’s blog (Jesus Creed) he has written a book called “A community called Atonement” he says this…
Not to let the cat out of the bag, but one point (that explains the title) is that Atonement is God’s work for us but it is also “praxis.”
I am reminded of the following…
In recent times some have thought that reconciliation ought to be seen in what we may term a horizontal rather than a vertical direction. Sin is thought of as something that erects barriers between a man and his neighbour, rather than between a man and his God. Reconciliation then becomes a way of enabling men to live together in meaningful community. there is , of course, something in this, for the man who has felt the healing touch of Christ upon his life is concerned with breaking down barriers which divide men.
But there must be a right order here. First comes reconciliation of the sinner with God, then reconciliation with man follows. Ephesians 2 is instructive in this connection. There, in connection with the great division of men into Jews and Gentiles, it is pointed out that Gentiles were separated from Christ as well as from one another. But the blood of Christ that brought them near to God brought them also near to one another. Peace was made between man and man, but it was the consequence of peace between man and God. (J. Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation 191
Of first things — the reconciliation should happen between the sinner and God! This is very important. The question is this…if your emphasis is on the ‘community atonement praxis’, then some may come away without being reconciled with God thinking all along that they are in good stead with the Almighty because they are co-creating a better community for everyone, not only believers. This quickly becomes a social, humanitarian understanding of the ‘atonement’.
We constantly read that the “Atonement” however you understand it, goes hand in hand with the gospel. This is very true. So, having the right view is very important. The gospel should be about man’s condition without God and how it is possible to get right with God through His Son that has provided the only way to be restored to any kind of relationship with the Father.
Dr. Gary Gilley puts it well when he says…
It does not seem to be an option to the emergent church that both social injustices and eternal redemption can be and have been attended to by God’s people. But, despite opinions to the contrary, the priority of Scripture is on man’s relationship to God. It is because men are alienated from God that they mistreat one another. The spiritually redeemed and transformed person should and will care about social sins.
But, again, the gospel is about man’s alienation from God and what He has done through Christ to reconcile us to Himself (Romans 5:6-11), not about the ozone layer and elimination of poverty. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made these latter things the focus of their ministries; it was the reconciliation of souls to God that was at the heart of their message. Once we begin to draw our gospel from the culture, no matter what culture that might be, we have altered the true gospel. Emergent leaders are not wrong to be concerned about the environment and social injustice; they are wrong to confuse it with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr Gary Gilley
One more thing as I hash this out. I thought I would research a Midrashic understanding of “Atonement” and I found this…
Moses and Atonement
Another example of the need for atonement is found in the story of Moses and the Golden Calf. After Israel sinned by making the golden calf, Moses ascended Mount Sinai to interceding for them. God was ready to destroy Israel; He was unwilling to even let His presence be among them. He said, “I will send an angel with Israel, but I cannot go with you or I might break out against you and destroy you.” (Exodus 33)
Because of the sin of the calf, Israel found herself unprotected. She has no covering. She is in danger from the presence of God.
But Moses says to Israel, “Perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” (Exodus 32:30). He fasts for forty days and nights, and then goes back up the mountain with the two new tablets. The two tablets are meant to replace the ones he broke when he saw the calf. He goes back up the mountain, back up into the presence of God.
On the mountain Moses implores God for mercy and requests to be shown all of God’s glory. Face to face. God replies that no man can see his face and live. Moses would be consumed by God’s glory. Instead God offers to cover Moses with his hand, hiding him in the cleft of the rock, while God passes by and declares the full meaning of His Name. He offers to tell Moses exactly who he is. He offers to reveal to Moses his essential person.
“And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, ‘The L-RD, the L-RD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.’” (Exodus 34:5-7)
This revelation is called the Thirteen Attributes of God. For the first time in history, the full extent of God’s mercy and grace were revealed. Moses already knew God was gracious, he already knew he was abounding in loving kindness, but to what extent he did not know, until that moment when God covered him with his hand and proclaimed his Name. Only then, with the revelation of these Thirteen Attributes, was it made clear that the essential essence of God and the meaning of his Name, the L-RD is Grace.
The Thirteen Attributes are an oft-repeated refrain in the prayers of the Day of Atonement. In those prayers, the congregation readily admits that we have no worthy deeds, we have nothing to show God, we have no merit to tip the scales of judgment in our favor. We have no basis to ask for mercy except for this, “You are the L-RD, the L-RD, gracious and compassionate:
The Second Coming of Moses
In the narrative, it is only after God has revealed to Moses his Thirteen Attributes,that he makes a new covenant with Israel.
He makes a new covenant with Israel and Moses returns down the mountain with the tablets. When the people see Moses, his face is radiating brilliance from being in the presence of God. Moses achieved covering for Israel’s sin. According to midrash, the day Moses came down Sinai with the 2nd set of tablets was indeed the Day of Atonement.
The picture of Moses in his second coming is startlingly messianic. On Moses’ first trip down the mountain out of the presence of God, the tablets were broken. Like Messiah himself, the Word was broken for the sin of the people. After this initial descent down the mountain, Moses returned to the God. He went back into the very presence of God to make atonement, to effect a new covenant, to reveal the true and essential person of God. He was able to reveal the full extent of God’s mercy and grace. These things accomplished, he then returned, bearing the New Covenant in his arms. He came down from the Father in splendor, in glory, in brilliance, terrible to behold. It was the Day of Atonement.
There is much more on this subject.
I personally find that the Hebraic, Midrashic understanding of the “Atonement” to be a much more biblically based understanding coupled with a considerable amount of deeper imagery than what is being discussed in current postmodern circles.
Here is another great link called “Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement“
Related Post
It’s all about the Atonement, again!
Carla over at ‘More Books and Things‘ has been doing an excellent job at reviewing the book ‘Stricken by God’ by Brad Jersak. She is doing this chapter by chapter.
With Mr. Jersak calling us to unite and follow Christ, the first question we should ask ourselves is… who is Christ and what was His purpose…
“With significant breadth and depth of perspective, our authors unite now in inviting the reader to follow Christ into that same victory” (of the resurrection)
-Jersak, page 53, SBG
We should all be very wary that there will be those who will preach another Jesus in the last days and because of this you will have to judge which Jesus it is that you are going to follow. Is it the one that is found in the Word of God, the one who is the Word of God in the flesh? Or is it the one that has become nothing more than a political leader fighting against the religious and political domination of his time. [Please note the small 'h' is used deliberately by these new age teachers. Concerning the dual nature of Christ, the deity of Christ is reduced as the man Jesus is being exalted, more about these doctrinal complications in a future post]
2Co 11:2-4 I am jealous of you with God’s own jealousy, because I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. However, I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by its tricks, so your minds may somehow be lured away from sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes along and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or should you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you are all too willing to listen.
This new Jesus, the man, has become nothing more than a political leader fighting against the religious and political domination of his time…
“following Jesus, is not about believing a correct atonement theology” …but a “commitment to the path of confrontation with dominations systems”
“The way of the cross is about discipleship, not believing in the blood of Jesus as a substitute for our own. I think it’s bad history because it presumes that Jesus’s death was part of the plan of God.” (p. 158, SBG)
Like the above scripture says, we are set aside for one husband… Jersak and his ilk are temple whores in the kingdom of God! I am beginning to understand the increasing relevance of the following scripture when Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God being like a fish net which needs sorting out. The good fish are kept the other bad ones will be thrown into a blazing furnace, a place where there is gnashing of teeth… Hades, Hell, you know that other not so popular place that certain teachers say doesn’t even exist (Emergents like Doug Pagitt)
Mat 13:47-50 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a large net thrown into the sea that gathered all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen hauled it ashore. Then they sat down, sorted the good fish into containers, and threw the bad ones away. That is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the evil from the righteous and will throw them into a blazing furnace. In that place there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
‘Stricken by God’ is all about the ‘Atonement’ and how to understand it properly according to this new way of teaching.
Any false teaching…teachings straight from the pits of hell, whoops can I say that???…will not preach the biblical understanding of the ‘Atonement’ and/or the resurrection. Of course it wouldn’t. Why? Because, if you had even a cursory understanding of this you may be convicted of sin and find out that you need to be born again of Spirit to enter heaven…Oh, silly me I can’t say that either. Satan would not be too pleased about someone becoming born again now would he? Wait a minute…I can’t say that there is a Satan either… can I?
No sin, no problemo. This is the kind of teaching that will lead people straight into that ‘place of which we do not speak’.
A Response to an Open Letter…
Awhile a go, I wrote something about an open letter…
When reading an open letter(pdf file) from the Muslim religious leaders in Britain that was written to the Pope and the leaders of other Christian churches, there seems to be a common truth - at first glance anyway.
It is not what is said that is the problem, but rather what is not said. Things of fundamental importance to the Christian faith was not addressed at all in this letter! And it is glaringly obvious to those who know what the Koran actually says about Allah in context; that Allah and the God of the Bible are not the same God at all.
Here is a biblical response to that letter that I wanted to share with you…
Response To Open Letter and Call From Muslim Religious Leaders To Christian Leaders, 13 October 2007
Barnabus Fund
November 2007
Introduction
To mark the end of Ramadan this year “An Open Letter and Call from Muslim Religious Leaders” was published, dated 13th October 2007. The letter was addressed to Pope Benedict XVI and 26 other named heads of Christian denominations as well as to “Leaders of Christian Churches, everywhere….” It is ostensibly a presentation of Islamic teaching on love for God and love for one`s neighbour. (The text of the open letter is available at [link])
The letter was organised by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, a non-governmental organisation based in Amman, Jordan, supported by the Jordanian Royal House. It has been trying to forge a united scholarly Muslim leadership that could speak for the whole global Muslim community and become the international voice of mainstream Islam.
Following a year after a letter to the Pope signed by 38 Muslim signatories (October 2006), the “Open Letter and Call” seems to signal some urgency. Does it indicate a fear that the West is finally awakening to the reality of Islamic intentions and therefore needs to be lulled, even anesthetised, to the prospects of deliberate Islamic expansion into the West? Or does it indicate a growing Muslim confidence and self-awareness of Islamic power, the letter itself being part of a strategy of Islamisation of the “Christian” world? Furthermore, did the lack of response by Pope Benedict to the letter from 38 Muslims prompt the new letter with 100 more names at the end?
The signatories
A wide spread of Muslim leadership is represented amongst the 138 signatories, drawn from 43 nations and representing various Sunni, Twelver Shi`a, Zaydi, Ibadi and Sufi constituencies. There are traditionalists, Islamists and several liberal Muslims. Some of the signatories are Muslim leaders well known for their moderation and peaceful intentions. Among them are Professor Akbar Ahmed, Dr Alan Godlas, Hamza Yusuf Hanson and Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
However, the list also includes some figures known for their Islamist extremist inclinations who are Wahhabists, members of the Muslim Brotherhood, or Deobandis. There are, for example, the various Saudi Wahhabi dignitaries: Mohammed Salim Al-`Awa (Muslim Brotherhood Egypt); Salim Falahat the Director General of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan; Ikrima Said Sabri Imam of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem; and Muhammad Taqi Usmani (Deoband). Some of these are on record as making radical and aggressive statements against Christians and Jews and in favour of global jihad.
Intended audience
While addressed to a specific group of Christian leaders, the fact that it is an open letter widely disseminated by the world media means that world public opinion is another intended audience. Furthermore, certain terminology in the letter, as well as the choice of Qur`anic quotations cited, suggest that the letter is also intended for the global Muslim audience. It is not unusual in Islamic discourse for different messages to be delivered to the different audiences. This is permitted by the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (dissimulation) which allows Muslims to practise deception in certain circumstances. It appears that the Christian vocabulary of the letter is intended to guide Christian readers to the erroneous conclusion that Islam and Christianity are basically identical religions, focusing on love to God and to the neighbour. The hidden messages for Muslims are contained in the many polemical quotations from the Qur`an.
Another example of the apparent use of taqiyya is the fact that some of the words in the Arabic version of the letter differ in meaning from those in the English version. For example, the word used for “neighbour” in the Arabic version of the letter is jar, a term which carries only a geographical meaning. It is not equivalent to the Biblical Hebrew word for neighbour, which is re`a (denoting kinship, even as close as a brother or sister). Yet there is another word for “neighbour” in Arabic which is closer to the meaning of the Hebrew re`a and which could have been used. This is the word qarib, which is used in Arabic Bibles and which more closely translates the Biblical original. It is also worth noting that Jesus Christ is not given the name used by Arabic Christians (Yasu` al-Masih), but the Islamic version (`Isa al-Masih).
The letter looks at the world as if comprised only of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. There is no mention of other world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism etc., or indeed of secular and agnostic or atheist people in the world. This may reflect the traditional Islamic classification of non-Muslims into Jews and Christians on the one hand, and “infidels” or “pagans” on the other hand. While Jews and Christians are seen in Islam as worthy of a place in an Islamic society, albeit with a second-class status, infidels are not considered to have any place at all (indeed, according to classical Islam, they should be killed if they will not convert to Islam). This is perhaps why “infidels” have been marginalised in this letter.
Of course a basic fallacy of this letter is the view that Western states are basically Christian and that, when pursuing their national interests, religious Christian motivations are foremost in their minds. This is a very common Muslim misconception, and is an indication of how much more important their faith is to an “average” Muslim than to an average Westerner.
Reading between the lines
On the surface the letter looks like a well intentioned and urgent plea for a better understanding between Muslims and Christians, so as to avert an apocalyptic war between the two largest religious blocs in the world.
If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace . . . the very survival of the world itself is at stake . . . So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us.
However, the letter goes on to lay the blame for all wars in which Muslims and Christians are involved on the actions of Christians.
As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes. [emphasis added]
This implies that the war against Islamist terrorism is a global war of Christianity against Islam, and that Christianity is the aggressor against Islam (which is the radical Islamist view). There is no sense of sorrow or remorse for the wrongs inflicted by Muslims on Christians historically, or indeed currently in many Muslim lands. There is no recognition that in many places things may be the opposite, with Muslims oppressing Christians and driving them from their homes (e.g. in Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan). There is no mention of the Christian communities in Muslim lands suffering other kinds of persecution and discrimination. There is no admission that Muslim actions could have played any part in the alienation between Muslims and Christians.
The liberal Muslim leaders who signed the letter seem to have agreed with the Islamist argument which accuses all Christians of a tendency to animosity, hatred and aggressiveness towards Muslims. So an apparently moderate appeal for reconciliation actually contains a subtext of warning and threat: “Do as we say, and you can have peace on our terms.” This in fact is the normal meaning of peace in Islam - peace for those who submit to Islamic rule (and war for those who do not).
Classical Islam teaches that the world is divided into two parts: Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) where political power is in the hands of Muslims, and Dar al-Harb (the House of War) which is the rest of the world. With this in mind, the “Open Letter and Call” is seen to be reminiscent of the traditional Islamic approach to non-Muslims outside the House of Islam. This approach consisted of a “call to Islam” (i.e. a call to convert to Islam) including the threat that if the non-Muslims do not convert they will be subject to a destructive military attack (jihad) aimed at subjugating Jews and Christians, and annihilating other non-Muslims. Hence the name “House of War” for non-Islamic territory. Only if the non-Muslims embrace Islam or submit to Islamic political power can they avert the attack. In the light of this tradition, the 2007 Muslim warning to non-Muslims about how to avoid war can be read in a very different way. Do some of the Muslim signatories see it as the traditional call and warning before an imminent attack on non-Muslims, an attack intended to win Islamic supremacy? The very word “call” in the title of the document drops a large hint in this direction, at least to Muslim readers.
Expression of Islamic mission (da`wa)
Although presented as interfaith dialogue, the letter can equally be viewed as a classical example of Islamic da`wa (mission). It is a call to accept the Muslim concept of the unity of God (tawhid) and therefore to reject the incompatible Christian views of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
In their stress on monotheism and the unity of God, the Muslim leaders quote a number of verses from the Qur`an which express the Muslim concept of a God with no associates and no partners - verses which have always traditionally been interpreted as a direct attack on the basic Christian doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ`s deity. For instance, Q3:64, quoted numerous times in the letter, calls the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) to agree not to ascribe partners to God and not to take other lords beside him.
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal `Imran 3:64)
This Qur`anic verse has always been understood as a call to deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. In the Saudi-sponsored English Qur`an of Hilali and Khan (Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur`an in the English Language, published in Riyadh by Darussalam) this verse has a footnote which quotes the letter Muhammad sent to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, calling upon him and his people to embrace Islam and including the threat that the rejection of this call would lead to severe consequences. It may be that a similar frame of mind lies behind the letter in which this verse is so often quoted.
Other Qur`anic quotations in the letter have a similar message about the unity of God: [emphasis added]
Yet there are men who take rivals unto God: they love them as they should love God. (Q 2:165).
Say: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for God, Lord of the Worlds. / He hath no partner . . . (Q 6:162-164)
Hadith traditions are quoted to support the same theme:
The best that I have said-myself, and the prophets that came before me-is: `there is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate . . . (Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Kitab Al-Da`awat, Bab al-Du`a fi Yawm `Arafah, Hadith no. 3934).
He who says: `There is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things` one hundred times in a day, it is for them equal to setting ten slaves free, and one hundred good deeds are written for them and one hundred bad deeds are effaced, and it is for them a protection from the devil for that day until the evening. And none offers anything better than that, save one who does more than that. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Kitab Bad` al-Khalq, Bab Sifat Iblis wa Junudihi; Hadith no. 3329.)
Say (O Muslims): We believe in God and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. / And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and God will suffice thee against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower. (Al-Baqarah, 2:136-137)
According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries (tafsir) on the Holy Qur`an-the Jami` Al-Bayan fi Ta`wil Al-Qur`an of Abu Ja`far Muhammad bin Jarir Al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H. / 923 C.E.)-that none of us shall take others for lords beside God, means `that none of us should obey in disobedience to what God has commanded, nor glorify them by prostrating to them in the same way as they prostrate to God`.
A hidden message for Muslims?
It is unusual to see Islamic scholars basing their presentation of Islamic doctrines only on the Qur`an. Usually the scholars seek to understand the Qur`an by reference to the hadith (traditions recording the sunna, that is the words and deeds of Muhammad and his Companions) and through tafsir (the Islamic science of interpreting the Qur`an) and other Islamic academic disciplines. There are few quotations from the hadith in the main body of the letter (though there are several more in the footnotes). However, all the Qur`anic verses quoted have interpretations in hadith and tafsir, interpretations which are well known to Muslims and which are usually much more aggressive towards Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims than represented by this letter. Therefore many Muslim readers would detect in the very act of selectively quoting from the Qur`an a hidden message that this is not a letter of appeasement, but a call to Is lam in the tradition of Muhammad and his Companions and of the early Caliphs. There the call is always to submit to Islam and to accept Islamic dominance.
For instance, the fatiha (sura 1 of the Qur`an) is quoted and presented as the greatest chapter in the Qur`an, reminding humans of their duty of praise and gratitude to God for his mercy and goodness. Included are verses 6 and 7:
Guide us upon the straight path. The path of those on whom is Thy Grace, not those who deserve anger nor those who are astray. [emphasis added]
In Muslim interpretations and commentaries on these verses, it is explained that those who deserve God`s anger are the Jews, while those who are astray are the Christians. Indeed, the Saudi-sponsored English translation of the Qur`an by Hilali and Khan explicitly incorporates this interpretation in the very text of the Qur`an:
Guide us to the Straight Way. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the Way) of those who earned your anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
Most Westerners, reading the verse as quoted in the letter, simply do not realise what it means. But for Muslims reading the letter, the meaning is clear: a call to Christians and Jews to avoid God`s anger and judgement by accepting Islam.
Loving God
The letter suggests that Islam has much to say about loving God. For example, it quotes a hadith of Muhammad describing God with a string of Qur`anic phrases: “He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise”. The letter asserts that each phrase describes “a mode of love of God, and devotion to Him”.
A similar assertion occurs at the end of the section about loving God, in a passage in which the phrase He hath no associate is repeated twice:
In the light of what we have seen to be necessarily implied and evoked by the Prophet Muhammad`s PBUH blessed saying: `The best that I have said-myself, and the prophets that came before me-is: `There is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things` [Al-Tirmithi, Kitab Al-Da`wat, Bab al-Du`a fi Yawm `Arafah, Hadith no. 3934], we can now perhaps understand the words `The best that I have said-myself, and the prophets that came before me` as equating the blessed formula `there is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things` precisely with the `First and Greatest Commandment` to love God, with all one`s heart and soul, as found in various places in the Bible. That is to say, in other words, that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH was perhaps, throu gh inspiration, restating and alluding to the Bible`s First Commandment. God knows best, but certainly we have seen their effective similarity in meaning. Moreover, we also do know (as can be seen in the endnotes), that both formulas have another remarkable parallel: the way they arise in a number of slightly differing versions and forms in different contexts, all of which, nevertheless, emphasize the primacy of total love and devotion to God.
In this part of the letter it is argued that Muhammad`s emphasis on the unity of God who has “no associate” is a re-statement of the Bible`s command about loving God with all your heart, soul and mind. The letter states that these two concepts are similar in meaning, although this is hard to derive from a straightforward reading of the two texts.
Perhaps the authors of the letter hoped that, by simply telling Christians that two different statements were really the same, they would be believed. Alternatively they could have had in mind the Muslim belief that Christian and Jewish Scriptures have been distorted, and that Muhammad`s statement is correcting the falsified Biblical teaching to what it was originally meant to have been.
Presenting the theme of love of God and of neighbour as central to Islam is again a misrepresentation of the truth. As stated in the Appendix, love in Islam is but one theme among many, and is not among the central themes of Islam. This is not to say that the Qur`an fails to mention God`s love at all (for it does), but that the weighting is very different from that in the Christian Bible where love is indeed the central theme.
Love your neighbour
The letter suggests that loving your neighbour is a concept common to both Islam and Christianity. But it ignores the fact that the Muslim concept of love for your neighbour can only operate within the limited scope of shari`a. Therefore in Islam there can be no absolute love for all humans, as in Christianity. Islam treats specific groups of people in specific ways: Christians and Jews are to be humiliated and brought under Islamic dominion as second rate subjects; infidels must accept Islam or be killed; apostates are to be killed if they do not return to Islam; Islamic sects considered heretical are to be fought and annihilated. Thus “neighbour” is a very limited concept in Islam, i.e. limited to fellow Muslims of the same tradition.
As we have already seen, the Arabic word chosen for “neighbour” in the letter is not one which carries the nuance of kinship as in the Bible, but another which has only a geographical meaning.
Jews are ignored
Except for the fact that the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4,5) is mentioned as a centrepiece of the Old Testament and of Jewish liturgy, the Jews are ignored. This fits with other Muslim endeavours to shift Christianity away from its Jewish roots. It also displays the traditional use of “divide and conquer” tactics - as the Jews are nowadays portrayed across the Muslim world as the worst enemies of Islam, this would signal an attempt to create an alliance with Christianity against Judaism.
Search for common ground or attempt to islamise Christianity
This letter appears to be part of an ongoing wider effort to islamise Christianity. This project presents the Qur`anic Jesus as the real historical Jesus. It presents Muhammad as similar to Jesus in character (peace and love), and it denigrates the Jewish and Old Testament roots of Christianity (Marcionism).
Thus we see that, in seeking common ground, the “Open Letter and Call” suggests that the central Muslim concept of unitarian monotheism and the central Christian concepts of love to God and love to neighbour are beliefs held by both religions. It stresses that the two commandments to love are the basis of what is common to both religions. But presenting love for God and neighbour as central to Islam is a misrepresentation of the truth.
The message is that if Christians will accept Islam`s concept of the unity of God (thus denying the basic doctrines of the Trinity and deity of Christ), Muslims will accept the Christian values of love for God and neighbour as central to Islam. Thus a radical revolutionary change in Christianity is demanded in exchange for a superficial change of emphasis in Islamic perceptions.
APPENDIX: THE CONCEPT OF LOVE IN ISLAM
Introduction: the contrast with Christianity
God`s love is the central theme of the New Testament and therefore of the Christian faith. Love is God`s main attribute and very essence. The main message of the New Testament is that God is love in His very being, and that this love was revealed in Jesus Christ and His supreme act of love, His self-giving in his sacrificial death on the cross (John 3:16; 1 John 4:7-12).
In Islam, however, the focus is on submission, so love is never more than one of many minor themes. Modern Muslim apologists in the West sometimes assert that God is a God of love. This is not a concept which traditional orthodox Islam would accept, but appears to be a modern stance of adaptation to the environment they find themselves in.
Love in Qur`an and hadith
Love is mentioned in the Qur`an over 50 times, mainly in the sense of love between persons and love of material things.
There are several verses that speak of humans` love towards God, for example:
Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah as equal (with Allah); they love them as they should love Allah. But those of faith are overflowing in their love for Allah. If only the unrighteous could see behold they would see the penalty that to Allah belongs all power and Allah will strongly enforce the penalty. (Q 2:165) [i]
A few verses speak of God`s love towards specific categories of humans (good Muslims). One of these is Q 85:14 “And He is the Oft-Forgiving, full of loving-kindness [al-wadud]“. From this verse is derived one of the 99 Beautiful Names of God, Al-Wadud (The One who Loves, The Most Loving, The Most Affectionate, The Beloved). Wadud, from the root wdd, is somewhat akin to the Old Testament Hebrew word dod or dodim (plural) used extensively in the Song of Songs for the pure love between man and woman. From it we get the name David (the beloved).
However, the word most often used in the Qur`an for love is hubb and its derivatives (mahabba, yuhibbu, etc.). This is linked to the Hebrew Old Testament word ahabah (root ahb) which is the one mostly used to denote love, both God`s love to man and man`s love to God. For example:
“I have loved you,” says the Lord. (Malachi 1:2)
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. (Deuteronomy 6:5)
Mahabba, the most common Islamic Arabic term for love, denotes an affection inspired in humans by gratitude for God`s blessings. On God`s side mahabba is usually bestowed as a reward for a good believer who follows Muhammad and submits to God.
Say: If ye do love God, follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Q 3:31)
Love in the Qur`an mainly means “liking” or “preference”. It derives from God`s will, rather than from His very nature. God loves the righteous.
… verily Allah loves those who act aright. (Q 3:76)
For Allah loves those who do good; (Q 3:134)
And Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast. (Q 3:146)
For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean. (Q 2:222)
For Allah loves those who are fair (and just). (Q 49:9)
Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure. (Q 61:4)
However, God does not love sinful people and he rejects his enemies.
… He loves not those who reject Faith (Q 30:45)
Verily He loveth not the arrogant. (Q 16:23)
Love appears also in the other main Islamic source, the hadith collections. In the hadith, there are references to love for things, love for martyrdom, love for God, and God`s love for Muhammad and for deserving Muslims.
Love in Islamic theology
According to Islamic teaching, God`s essence and nature cannot be known. Therefore a statement like “God is love” (which appears in the Bible, 1 John 4:8,16) would be theologically wrong in classical Islam.
Islam does teach that God`s attributes can be known, and these are described in the form of the “99 Beautiful Names”. Love is one of these 99, as we have seen above, but only one. The names emphasise much more God`s omnipotence and omniscience, his mercy and compassion, his sovereignty and inscrutable will.
In Islam God reveals himself mainly through his law (shari`a) which calls for submission and obedience. While in Christianity God is personal and establishes personal relationships of love with humans, in classical Islam God is seen as totally self-contained and beyond personal relationships. In Islam, although God loves certain Muslim people of whom he approves, he is not bound to love them even if they deserve his love. Ultimately God is not obliged to do anything, but acts as he wills, sometimes in an entirely capricious manner.
Orthodox classical Islam is more concerned with God`s greatness and transcendence, with shari`a law and its applications, than with God`s love. God is absolutely other, unknowable, far beyond what can be known or imagined (wara`l wara i.e. beyond the beyond). The role of humans is to submit, fear and obey God and his law. For example, following the call in March 2005 by a well-known Islamist scholar, Tariq Ramadan, for a moratorium on the brutal hudud punishments still implemented in some Muslim states (amputation, stoning, flogging etc.), several Islamic scholars opposed the suggestion. Sheikh Muhammad al-Shinqiti, director of the Islamic Center of South Plains in Lubbock, Texas, claimed that harshness was part of shari`a and any attempt at softening it was giving in to Western Christian concepts which were incompatible with Islam. Shinqiti s tated that a personalised faith, like that of Christians, leads to corruption and immorality. He preferred the detachment and severity of Islam, citing the Qur`anic verse
And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. (Q 24:2, translation not specified)
In this view, harshness rather than love and mercy are at the heart of Islam. The inference is that Christianity is weak and contemptible because it has love and mercy at its very core.
Love in Sufism
It was left for Islamic mysticism (Sufism) to try to redress the balance and introduce the theme of love into Islam. Sufism offered an escape from the dry and intellectual legalism of the orthodox Islamic teachers and scholars. It focused instead on the human yearning for an authentic personal experience of God. Sufism taught that this experience could be had by a spiritual interpretation of the Qur`an aimed at finding its secret meaning, and by the disciplines of asceticism, repetition of God`s names, breath control, meditation and trance.
Rabi`a al-Adawiyya (died 801) introduced the theme of Divine Love into Sufism. She longed to love God only for himself, not for hope of any reward in paradise nor out of fear of judgement and hell. After her death the love theme became a dominant feature of Sufism, expressing the Sufi`s endless search for unity with the divine Beloved. The yearning for a love relationship with God was expressed by Sufis in the language of human love, similar to the Bible`s Song of Songs and some psalms. Sufi poetry described symbolically the relationship between God the Divine Lover and the human person searching for his love. In addition to the Qur`anic terms mahabba and wudud, Sufis coined the term `ishq for love. `Ishq denotes an unquenchable and irresistible desire for union with the Beloved (God).
While Sufism used to be found in every branch of traditional Islam, the strict Islamist reform movements which have developed in recent times have rejected much of Sufism as pagan additions and innovations which should be purged from Islam. The concept of love is downplayed by such movements and condemned as a pagan, Christian or Western notion incompatible with true Islam.
Note: Most Qur`anic quotations in this Response are taken from The Holy Qur`an: Text, Translation and Commentary by A. Yusuf Ali (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1975 and many other editions) unless otherwise stated. Please note that different translations of the Qur`an have slightly different verse numbers. So in another translation it may be necessary to look at the verses just before or just after the text references given here in order to find the same text. However, where Qur`an verses quoted in the “Open Letter and Call” are re-quoted here, the translation is not known as it was no specified in the “Open Letter and Call”.
The Todd Friel and Doug Pagitt transcript
You may remember last month the conservative blogging world were all up in arms about the interview between Todd Friel and Doug Pagitt. Carla from ‘More books and things‘ sent me the mp3 of the interview, and I remember listening to it in my lounge room with absolute frustration and sadness at this type of heresy that is now coming from the ‘Emer‘ crowd and its leaders.
Sadly, I am not surprised by this, and those who persevere in the Truth of His Word are not surprised by it either. They too, have realised that today we are in the last days before our ‘Blessed Hope’ and His glorious appearing.
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
I have just found the transcript to the whole interview for those who do not have a fast connection - you can read the interview on-line here.
Todd: Yea, do you think, do you think there’s an eternal damnation for people who are not Christians?
Doug: Yeah, well, I think that there’s.. I think there’s all kinds of … I mean that, that, damnation would sort of be that.. that there’s parts of the uh, life in Creation that seem to be counter to what God is doing and those are the things that are eliminated and removed and done away with. And so I think that’s what damnation is, and so there’s people who want to live out that kind of uhm, wanna have that good judgment – the judgment of God in their life. I mean you know Judge… Judgment in a biblical fashion meaning that God remakes… that God remakes the world.
Todd: OK, Doug, hold on Doug… Doug hold on a second. I have no idea what you just said. Here’s what I think Hell is: eternal damnation, God sends lawbreakers to a place where there’s weeping, there’s gnashing of teeth, a lake of sulpher, the worm never dies, eternal conscious torment. Agree or disagree?
Doug: Disagree.
Servant Attitude
Here I am, Lord, send me; send me to the ends of the earth; send me to the rough, the savage Pagans of the wilderness [far] from all…earthly comfort…even to death itself; if it be but in Thy service and to promote thy Kingdom….
I declare, now that I am dying, I would not have spent my life otherwise for the whole world.
David Brainerd. Before age 30, he died taking the gospel to American Indians. More than any other individual he was responsible for the great 19th-century missionary revival.
We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.
A.W. Tozer, from Man: The Dwelling Place of God
Related…
Hyper-Arminianism can lead to Humanism
I’ve just read something from a website that pretty much stood out for me. Firstly it addresses the Calvinist - Arminian debate and then it speaks about the dangers of Arminian theology when taken to its extreme. The article speaks about the dangers of humanism found in hard Arminian theology. Could we call this Hyper-Arminianism?
I have often wondered why this ‘Social Gospel’ has taken off in such a big way, especially in the west, and this article may have hit the nail on the head. Well, for me it did anyway. Please note that I do not always agree with every link that I use in my posts, but rather glean contents that I see as informative and perhaps in some cases may answer a nagging question that I may have. The article called ‘The Triumph of Arminianism (and Its Dangers)’ says…
Face it, Arminianism is simply more logical. It makes sense to the person on the street. And today’s church is scrambling to make sense to unbelievers. We want to sound sensible, logical, rational, enlightened, fair. Arminianism is so much more appealing to worldly people.Thus, many Calvinist churches customize worship services, communication styles, architecture, and music, to fit the worldly customers. But they also adapt their theology by quietly creeping away from the “right end” of the theological continuum and drifting over toward Arminianism. The truth of the matter is, they are embarrassed by Calvinistic theology. They have found it offensive to the “customers.” The Arminian approach to theology is simply a more “seeker sensitive.”
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Then goes on to say that pragmatism may well be one of the negatives in Arminian circles…
We Arminians tend to put too much emphasis on man and his decisions, and not enough on God and the gospel. Sometimes we are tempted to act as if God is helpless without us and our work. We lean toward pragmatism and are constantly looking for “what works best” as if methodology were more important than the message. Since we believe that all men can be saved, we tend to assume that if they aren’t saved, we have not packaged the invitation (or the message) right. We especially love management, leadership, programs, marketing, and research data. We tend to focus more on the “potential convert” than on the eternal gospel. Arminianism easily leans toward a NIKE mentality—”Just do it.”[…]Humanists have a sovereign man and an inactive God. Arminians lean toward the humanist end of this continuum and thus are always in danger of becoming humanists
I definitely had an “Aha” moment when I read this.
Is it little wonder then to see such scholarly work from the Calvinist side everywhere on the Internet to counter the Hyper-Arminian view? Every action has an equal an opposite reaction. Is it little wonder that the Arminian side - if heavily leaning towards humanism and pragmatism - finds itself is a sea of secular reasoning and logic instead of using the Word of God to give a defence? Haven’t we noticed recently that all the doctrines that are pivotal to ‘Biblical Christianity’ have been criticised and questioned - like atonement, regeneration, justification by faith and repentance? Charles Finney is dead, but his views are finding there way back into the evangelical Church big time. Are we seeing a rehash of Hyper-Arminianism, if there is such a word? Read Charles Finney’s views and you be the judge.
As for me, I prefer to think that I am closer to the Wesleyan-Arminian side of things, a hair’s breadth away from Calvin.
