Here is an excellent few minutes of why Christianity is true by John Piper, in which he gives three compelling reasons.
Here is an excellent few minutes of why Christianity is true by John Piper, in which he gives three compelling reasons.
Luke 18:9-14 – “Be Propitious toward me, the sinner!”
Time to re-post this important article, as it relates to both Muslim’s arguments and Roman Catholic arguments. Please also make sure to see the article on this at Beggar’s All.
Originally posted on apologeticsandagape:
The British convert to Islam, Paul Bilal Williams thinks that Jesus’ teaching on justification ( Jesus mentions justification in Luke 18:14) is different than the apostle Paul’s teaching on justification by faith. He has written several articles on this issue and Luke 18:9-14, and within one of his articles, he brings up Luke 18:9-14 here.
Note: Paul Williams took down his wordpress blog and left Islam for a few days, then repented and came back to Islam after creating a new blog. www.bloggingtheology.org
I also already responded to this article, and refuted Paul Williams here, at another blog that I am a part of the blogging team.
Also he asked me about what Jesus taught on justification and what Paul the apostle taught on justification recently in the com- boxes of the article, “The Qur’an Speaks about earlier Revelations”. (as of me writing this, we are…
View original 1,357 more words
The Islamic sources could not completely get rid of the concept of sacrifice, ransom, or substitutionary atonement in their texts of the Qur’an nor Hadith collections, because it was so clearly taught in the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures.
Muslims like Paul Williams, Shabir Ally, and Jamal Badawi say, that the Christian idea of substitutionary atonement is wrong and unjust and does not make sense.
“The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque.” Paul Williams writes that here, called “The Supreme Maxim of Christianity”.
Then why do these Islamic Hadiths clearly say that Allah will forgive the sins of Muslims and save them from hell by punishing Jews and Christians in their place?
“Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.” (Hadith, Sahih Muslim, Book 37, no. 6665)
“Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him).”
(Hadith, Sahih Muslim, Book 37, no. 6666.)
“Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him)? I said: Yes. ” (Hadith, Sahih Muslim, Book 37, no. 6668.)
And why does the Qur’an also mention the idea of substitutionary sacrifice in Surah Al Saffat 37:107 ?
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”
وَفَدَيْنَـهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”
فَدَيْنَـهُ = “we ransomed him”
بِذِبْحٍ = بِ =b = “with” or “by”;
ذِبْحٍ = sacrifice, slaughter, slain victim
(The cognate Hebrew word for sacrifice is similar, ZBH, זֶבַח
عَظِيم = “great”, “mighty”, “tremendous”
which is about the innocent ram being substituted for Abraham’s son, and comes from Genesis 22, and is also taught in the Jewish scriptures and in history in Exodus 12 (Passover) and Leviticus (chapters 1-7, 16-17) and the temple sacrifices (1 Kings 8) and the prophesies of the suffering Servant/ Messiah (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) ?
Jesus, Al Masih عیسی المسیح was the final perfect sacrifice. Al Masih fullfilled all the OT sacrifices and system.
Yahya یحیی (Prophet John the Baptizer) said, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29
For More, see:
Time to reblog this article I wrote a while back, showing that Jesus always spoke the truth, and He prophesied of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and it came to pass about 40 years after He prophesied of it around 30 AD, a few days before He was crucified. (see Matthew 23:36-39 and Matthew 24:1-3.) So, as the article shows, this was a “coming” in a sense of judgement, as in Revelation chapters 2-3, Isaiah 19:1, but it was not the second coming of Christ, which is still future to us. The Disciples questions in verse 3 mix the issue of 70 AD in with “the sign of your coming” and “of the end of the age”, so in Jesus’ answer, aspects of His second coming are mixed in with events of 70 AD. Matthew 24:36 starts a section of “that day”, which is only about His future second coming. Matthew 24:1-35 have a mixture of 70 AD in with a future second coming.
Originally posted on apologeticsandagape:
Jesus always spoke the truth.
Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Indeed, Jesus Himself is the truth. John 14:6
And the words of the NT are the words of Jesus. Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jewish temple around 30 AD (Matthew 23:36-39; 24:1-3, 24:15), and it came to pass in 70 AD. (within that generation – see Matthew 24:34/Mark 13:30)
Paul Bilal Williams, has a post entitled “The Most Embarrassing verse in the Bible”, where he quotes C. S. Lewis and the famous atheist Bertrand Russell on Mark 13:30/Matthew 24:34.
Eschatology (the doctrine of Last Things, or “End Times”) is…
View original 1,386 more words
I appreciate Paul Williams letting me comment again on his blog recently.
Paul Williams has a video up of Hamza Yusuf explaining the concept of Dhimmi and Dhimmitude in Islam http://bloggingtheology.org/2014/08/04/concept-of-dhimmi-explained-by-sheikh-hamza-yusuf/
Dhimmi in Islam basically means the minority, subjugated, protected peoples who have to pay a submission tax (Jiziye – Qur’an Surah 9:29) under the Islamic state, originally it was the Christians and the Jews, the people of the book. Later is was expanded to include the Zorastrians in Persia, when the Arabs conquered the Persian Empire, and then later even extended to Hindus and Buddhists in India, when they expanded their jihads into India.
Hamza Yusuf makes some good points, but . . . the parallel he makes with USA and Kuwait is not a complete parallel. Keep reading.
Expansion of Islam (622 AD – 750 AD)
Age of the Caliphs and Dhimmi System
Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632/A.H. 1-11
Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661/A.H. 11-40
Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750/A.H. 40-129
In order to understand Dhimmi ذمّی and Dhimmitude in Islam, one has to get the larger context than just Hamza Yusuf’s short statement. One should read all of the links to the articles below to understand Dhimmi and Dhimmitude. It developed from Surah 9:28-29 and from the Pact of Umar I (Umar/Omar Ibn Al Kattab, the Second Caliph, 634-644 AD) and was further developed under another Umar/Omar – Umar Ibn Abdul Azziz, who was Caliph from 717-720 AD.)
Overall, if one reads all the information here, and the links to other articles, it shows the problem with modern Muslims claiming that that the attacks on the Byzantine and Persian Empires from 634 AD onward to 732 (battle of Tours and Charles Martel stopping the Muslims in Europe) and beyond all the way to 1453 and the conquering of Constantinople, are false claims for saying they were seeking to free the Copts and other Monophysites and Nestorians from the tryanny of the Byzantine and Persian Empires. It is true that at the beginning, from some exant sources, the Monophysite Copts and Syrians said that they welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators from their Byzantine oppressors. (policies from Justinian (Emperor from 527-565 AD) and Heraclius (Emperor from 610-641 AD – at time of Muhammad) who both tried to unify the Monophysite groups to unity with the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD.) However, according to the Qur’an and Hadiths, that was not Muhammad nor the Caliphs motivations. They wanted to spread Islam, as David Wood points out, Surah 9:29 does not say, “fight the people of the book because they oppress each other” (Byzantines/Chalcedonian Creed vs. Monophysite Copts, Jacobite Syrians and Armenians; and Nestorians vs. Zoroastrian Persia). It says “fight them because of their beliefs and practices” and verse 28 and 29 indicates that Allah will make them rich by the jiziye tax that they will get from the Christians and Jews. So the attacks of Umar Ibn Al Kattab and the Jihads of the Muslims after that were all unjust. Later, the Copts and Syrians and other minorities could not complain because of fear of persecution and violence, and it was too late. As one Coptic Christian Evangelical said to me, “The Muslims decieved my people at the beginning; for later it became worse.” The minority Christians slowly converted to Islam over the centuries because of the economic and social pressures of being “Dhimmi” – really, it amounted to being a second class citizen.
What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. That means the Muslims could not get tax or penalty money from the pagans. Surah 9:5 – “fight the unbelievers where ever you find them”, proves this, and several Hadith that says “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula” see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, and other Hadiths, quoted at the bottom of this article *) They were all killed or driven out or converted to Islam. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.
Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Qur’an 9:29—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, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4— “Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. 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, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.”
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”
About the Pact of Umar Ibn Al Khattab, the Second Khaliph of Sunni Islam. (some of the quotes below are taken from this article) Shows that Christians and Jews were indeed humiliated, forced to pay the Jiziye, contrary to what Hamza Yusuf said, and were not allowed to evangelize or build new churches, or even to repair existing churches. (this one seems to have been sometimes allowed in Muslim history, but they were never allowed to build new churches or evangelize Muslims.)
Back to the video by Hamza Yusuf that Paul Williams put up at his site.
Hamza Yusuf makes some good points. The Muslims were kind to the Jews and other heretics when they were fleeing the persecutions of the Roman Catholics during the middle ages, especially when they were fleeing the Spanish Inquisition.
The point that the Kuwaitis paid for protection against Saddam Hussein and the USA rebuilt Kuwait and got S.H. out of Kuwait for a price is a pretty good point . . .
except the USA never stayed there as the rulers (Omar and Islam / subsequent Khaliphs did after they conquered most of the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire), and they never required anyone to convert to any kind of religion, and they never forbid evangelism/da’awa. The USA promoted freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (this includes freedom to evangelize, which Islam never permits.)
In order to understand Dhimmi / Dhimmitude, Hamza Yusuf left out a lot of details of the requirements of the Dhimmi peoples – the Christians (and Jews) were not allowed to evangelize or share the gospel with Muslims. And Muslims were never allowed freedom of speech and / or thought – to question Islam or leave Islam. The USA in Kuwait was a temporary thing, we helped them rebuilt their country, allowed freedom of thought, and left. To this day, the Kuwaiti people love George H. W. Bush for getting Saddam out of Kuwait.
Dhimmi does not mean “responsibility” but it means “protected under contract”, or “contract” or “agreement of the “protected ones”. One could say that the Dhimmis had responsibility to respond rightly, but the choice was pay the Jiziye tax or be punished, tortured, imprisoned or die by the sword. Also, later, the Muslims added the Kharaj tax, and together it slowly wore down the populations to where the Christians converted to Islam. Their responsibility was to obey the covenants in the Pact of Umar/ Omar 1 (Islamic history attributes it to Omar ibn Al Khattab- around 637-638 AD, when he conquered Jerusalem and Syria/Levant, but many agree that it was probably developed and added to by a later Umayyad Khaliph, who also had the name of Umar/Omar – in the Covenant of Omar 2 ( Omar Ibn Abdul Azziz) ( 717-720 AD) There is no doubt there is humiliation there and by the comments of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hazm, if you read them with honesty, there is no way that what Hamza Yusuf says about “Saghir” (humiliation, small, lower than, less than) can stand up to scrutiny. Hamza Yusuf doesn’t tell the whole story, and distorts things on this issue.
Despite being attributed to Umar Ibn al Khattab, the second Khaliph, by early Muslim jurists, most modern scholars are of the opinion that the document was either the work of 9th century Mujtahids, or was forged during the reign of the Umayyad Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-720 AD), with other clauses added later. Other scholars concluded that the document may have originated in immediate post-conquest milieu and was stylized by later historians.
Originally, Muhammad’s Islam was that only Christians and Jews were allowed to live if they paid the Jizieye, (Surah 9:28-29) and only later, when the Muslims were conquering Persia, did they expand it to the Magi / Majoosian (the Arabic word for Zoroastrians). But most Persians were killed, eventually converted or fled Persian/Iran – there are more Zoroastrians (Parsees) in Mumbai, India today, than in Iran. They are the descendants of those that fled the harsh wars against them in Persia, started by Khalif Umar Ibn Al Khattab. Much later, when Islam expanded through Jihads and Wars into India, they expanded the Dhimmi principle to Buddhists and Hindus, but originally, it was only for Monotheistic religions, Jews and Christians.
“[The] capitation-tax [Jizya] is a sort of punishment inflicted upon infidels for their obstinacy in infidelity, (as was before stated;) whence it is that it cannot be accepted of the infidel if he send it by the hands of a messenger, but must be exacted in a mortifying and humiliating manner, by the collector sitting and receiving it from him in a standing posture : (according to one tradition, the collector is to seize him by the throat, and shake him, saying, “Pay your tax, Zimmee!) It is therefore evident that capitation-tax is a punishment; … Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels, and a substitute for personal aid in respect to the Muslims, (as was before observed;) – but it is a substitute for destruction with regard to the future,” From the Hanafi Sharia Law manual.
Thus in the Hanifi school – which was the most liberal of the four with regard to Jizya – the Jizya is clearly identified as a “humiliation” and a “substitute for destruction”. Thus we can see who it primarily was the such “protected persons” as Dhimmis were actually protected from. In other words: Jizya is a protection racket and if you don’t pay you will be killed.
One renowned modern Muslim commentator, S. Abul A’la Mawdudi writes:
“They [Jews and Christians] should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land.”(Mawdudi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, 1993 edition, vol 2, page 183.)
* No two religions are allowed in Arabia
Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!” Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, “On Thursday the illness of Allah’s Apostle was aggravated and he said, “Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, “Allah’s Apostle is seriously sick.’ The Prophet said, “Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for.” The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them.” I forgot the third (order)” (Ya’qub bin Muhammad said, “I asked Al-Mughira bin ‘Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, ‘It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen.” Ya’qub added, “And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.”) – Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, “One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, ‘May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.’ ” – Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ”Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar.” – Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18
Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: people of two different religions would not inherit from one another. – Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 18, Number 2905
It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. – Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4366
This [Addendum: and other arguments from other scholars below] fully refutes Shabir Ally’s argument that Mark was written in 70 AD (following liberal scholars) below in his debate with Dr. White. The only reason liberals date Mark at 70 AD or later is because they don’t believe in supernatural prophesy. They don’t believe that in 30 AD, a week before He is crucified, Jesus actually prophesied of the destruction of the temple, and it actually came true and happened in 70 AD, about 40 years later.
“In sum, Mark should be dated before the production of Luke’s gospel which we date no later than 62 CE. Sometime in the mid-50s is most probable.”
Addendum: Other scholars for early dating of Mark:
John Wenham, in his book, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, puts the Gospel of Mark at 45 AD.
John A. T. Robinson, put the Gospel of Mark also at 45 AD, and makes the case for all of the NT being written before 70 AD, in his famous book, Redating the New Testament.
F. F. Bruce, puts the Gospel of Mark in AD 64, which is still way before 70 AD and before even the break out of the war of the Romans vs. the Jews, that started in 66 AD by Nero.
“As for the earliest of our Gospels, Mark, if it is a Roman Gospel (as I think), the crisis of A.D. 64 might have provided a suitable occasion for its publication. But my Manchester predecessor, T. W. Manson, was willing to push it back into the 50s, considering that a suitable occasion for its publication might have been the reconstitution of the church in Rome about A.D. 55, after its dispersion when Claudius banished the Roman Jews about A.D. 49.” (“On Dating the New Testament”, Eternity 23 (June 1972): 32-33. (bolding my emphasis)