علم تفسیر (Farsi form) علم التفسیر (Arabic form) = “The Science of Interpretation”

Credit goes to a Christian named “Frankz” who posted this video in the com-box of Paul Williams blog.  I appreciate Paul Williams letting this video be published at his blog; and usually he lets me post comments; but other times he cuts me off and won’t allow some of my posts to go through, recently.   (he did this before, and I thought he banned me permanently; but I waited a few months and found he let me in again.  So, it seems he gives freedom for a while, until things become too difficult for him to handle, especially when Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, and David Wood start refuting him at www.answeringMuslims.com

This  is an excellent video in its content by David Wood and Sam Shamoun, specifically answering and refuting Zakir Naik’s Islamic polemics of taking Bible verses out of context, in order to attack the doctrines of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

Muslims complain all the time when they think we are taking their verses (either Qur’anic verses, or Ahadith), or their Sira (life of Muhammad) or Tarikh (history) or Fiq scholars, or their Tafsirs (commentaries)  out of context, but then when we show the context, they will say, “You don’t understand the Hadith sciences of interpretation” or “the Qur’an sciences of interpretation” or “you don’t understand the Islamic scholars of Fiq (Islamic legal jurisprudence)” or “you don’t understand the deep meaning of the Arabic; and so, you have to learn Arabic first and then you can comment on the Qur’an or Hadith”.

But, when we do sincerely try to explain our doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, they take verses out of context and also ignore the Christian sciences of interpretation.

Or, the Muslims will not allow further comments in com-boxes.

(and in history, not allow Muslims to leave Islam, and make all out war against pagans, Jews, and Christians)

What are they afraid of?

Or, in history, (see the book, Crucified Again, by Raymond Ibrahim)  Islam in general used war and force to subjugate anyone who opposes them – the pagans of Arabia (Surah 9:1-14); and Hindus and Buddhists and pagans of other areas later; but first, after conquering the pagan Arabs, they aggressively attacked the Byzantine and Persian Empires and conquered them and converted many by force over the centuries by the combination of persecution, war, Zimmi / dhimmi ( ذمی ) status, and economic / jiziyeh tax, and social pressure, and not allowing Muslims to leave Islam.  (Surah 9:5; 9:28-29; 8:39)

Or, they accuse the Hadith that a Christian quotes as “Israiliyaat Hadith” (Israeli or Jewish Hadiths; usually they will also throw in “Zionist!!”) – right.  One Muslim who goes by “Jesus” wrote that in the com box at Paul’s blog.   Blame everything on the Jews!  Typical Muslim conspiracy theory and bias and prejudice and hatred against everything Jewish.  (except when it fits their agenda to attack Christianity.)

“He did not addressed a single point of your article and says Islam too is idolatry basing on some  Israliyaat Hadith tries to show that God can appear in any form on the day of judgement . No Sunni Muslim scholar claim them to be authentic.”  [my bolding]

A big problem with that is that all of those Hadith that Anthony Rogers, in his response to Paul Williams, quoted from are all from Sahih Al Bukhari!  

I wrote,

Now, you should explain what those Hadith mean about “Allah’s Shin” and “seeing Him on judgment day as clear as the sun and the moon”, etc.They are all from Sahih Al Bukhari – you cannot just dismiss them. Anthony Roger’s 2 articles still stand. You need to answer the other questions.

They have yet to explain how Sahih صحیح ( correct, right, genuine, authentic, sound) Al Bukhari can be “Israeli Hadith”!  Silence  . . . we hear the crickets chirping . . .

Paul Bilal Williams and other Muslims at his blog recently employed some of these tactics; not all at once, and not all from one person, but the cumulative effect is ignoring context; ignoring the science of Christian interpretation; actually changing words in verses, and not understanding Christianity because Paul Williams was never born again in the first place, and then not allowing further comments in order to explain.

Paul B. Williams accused Christianity of having idolatry inherently built into its own system, because we worship Jesus as one person, with two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature.  But then when I tried to answer, he didn’t allow my further comments to be posted.  He allowed one, but not any after that point and turned on the moderation on me.  It is possible he will allow them through later, but as of this point, he won’t allow me to comment further.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what he is afraid of?

Paul claims he was an Evangelical Christian before and pictured in his mind worshiping Jesus and Jesus receiving his worship, and based on that, and on dividing Jesus into 2 persons (thus committing the heresy of Nestorianism) accuses Christianity of being idolatrous, because Paul Williams split Jesus up, focusing only on Human nature, and then he claims that is idolatry.

Paul then takes a verse of the apostle Paul, whom he hates and distrusts and says “hijacked Christianity”, (Romans 1:25) and changes the phrase “rather than”/ “instead of” to “and” and voila, says, “see, the Christians are idolaters!”

The problems are many-fold:

1.  Paul Williams was never truly born-again, so he was never able to truly worship God, the true God, in spirit and truth.  (John 4:23-24; Philippians 3:3)

Since he never had the Holy Spirit living within him; he is not able to understand fully.  Therefore, he was open to the deceptions of Islam that claims itself as the true religion.  And now he attacks Christianity, but he never understood it in his soul or spirit, since he did not have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 2:19 and Hebrews 3:12 and 6:4-6; and John 15:2-3, 6 with John 13:10-11, like Judas Iscariot) describe people who are around other Christians and claim to be Christians and go to church and seem to be Christians for a time, but who eventually fall away, because they actually were never born-again in the first place.  Like a dog who returns to his own vomit, or a pig that returns to the mud after being washed externally, when the heart is not actually changed, it leaves Christ and His church later.  (2 Peter 2:21-22)  This is not meant as a personal insult, but rather the reality of logic, Scripture and even the logic of Islam and its claims.  Islam claims to be true, and according to its claim, there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit as Christians have taught, since according to Islam, Paul and the writers of John and Hebrews and Matthew hijacked Christianity.  And in Islam, since there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit, it was impossible for Paul Williams to claim he was born again by the Spirit of God and was a true Christian for a while.  (John 3:1-21; Ezekiel 36:26-27)  Since he rejects Jesus’ voice in the Scriptures, he was never  a true sheep.  (John 10:27-30)

 “For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:21-22)

2.  Paul Williams took Romans 1:25 and changed the words, and that is not allowed; and not a proper way to do Da’awa; therefore his whole argument fails, since his argument is based on changing the wording of the Christian text.

3.  He violated the Christian science of interpretation.

علم تفسیر (Farsi form)  Arabic = علم التفسیر

prounounced “Elm -e-Tafsir” (Farsi) or ” ‘Alem al-Tafsir” (Arabic)

David Wood and Sam Shamoun did an excellent job of showing how Zakir Naik did basically the same thing in violating the science of interpretation.

a.  Taking verses out of context

b. interpreting them in a way that splits them from each other, creating a contradiction; thus not following a basic rule of interpretation, that is, they must be studied and interpreted in a way that sees them in harmony, as coming from one source as a unity.  Since there is no contradiction in God’s mind, they cannot be forced to be interpreted as a contradiction.

Here is the post of Anthony Rogers that started a lot of the back and forth and then Paul Williams beginning to avoid answering questions, when Anthony pointed out the differences between Sunni Islam and the Mu’tazilites, who were eventually deemed as heretics by Sunni Islam.

One should read Anthony’s entire article, and it is admittedly a deep subject.  But I have always appreciated what Geisler and Abdul Saleeb wrote in their analysis of Islam here in the book, Answering Islam: (I read this book in 1993, soon after it came out)

“Furthermore, there is a serious moral problem with Islamic voluntarism. For if God is Will, without any real [i.e. definable – Anthony Rogers] essence, then he does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good….

Since God has no essence, at least not one that the names (or attributes) of God really describe, the Islamic view of God involves a form of agnosticism. Indeed, the heart of Islam is not to know God but to obey him. It is not to meditate on his essence but to submit to his will. As Pfander correctly observed of Muslims, “If they think at all deeply, they find themselves absolutely unable to know God….Thus Islam leads to Agnosticism.”12  
(from Answering Islam, Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Baker, 1993 edition, pp. 136-137) [with my embolding – Ken Temple]

That seems to be the essence of Islam,  just submit to the external rules of Islam dictated in society (Sharia Law; the Caliphate system); Allah is a cruel master, “Al Jabbar”, the forceful one who forces you to obey; and the “Kheir ol Makkareen” = the very best deceiver.  (Surah 3:54; 8:30; 10:22)  While Reformed Christians agree with God’s Sovereignty over all things(see James White’s book, What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an (page 114, which I agree with Dr. White on), Islam does not have the love of God, and by nature, by rejecting the Trinity and the Father and the Son doctrines, there is no “God is love” in Islam, as in 1 John 4:8-21; there is no love in Islam, and no “God as Father”, and no relationship of love and spiritual communion with God Himself personally, that, as Samuel Zwemer wrote years ago, that “balances out the sovereign decrees”, there is no real love or relationship or knowing God that balances out Allah’s force and aloofness and absolute Sovereignty. 

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
Video | This entry was posted in Apologetics, Islam, The doctrine of the Trinity. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to علم تفسیر (Farsi form) علم التفسیر (Arabic form) = “The Science of Interpretation”

  1. 96of98 says:

    I’m having the same problem posting comments on Paul Williams blog, I thought it was a problem with Chrome or with WordPress. But now I think that he blocks or moderates comments.

    This is what I was going to post in response to Yahya Snow

    For some reasons some of my coments go through and others do not. I don’t know if Paul Williams is blocking me and or deleting my comments. Of if this is a glitch with Crhome and WordPress. But I can say that I have answered Paul Williams false dillema as has Ken, as has Anthony and a few others. So to say we have not answered is deception at its best.

    Yayha Snow wrote…

    “Why start falsely pointing at Islam when you cannot answer the observations of somebody who was a former Christian? That’s what Rogers and the charlatan that is Wood are doing…”

    Says the person who also said…

    “I haven’t bothered visiting Dav Wood’s den of Muslim-bashing to see his response (and see what specific practices Dave is banging on about)…”

    My Response:

    How do you know that’s what Wood and others are doing if you haven’t even bothered to read their response?

    Snowman, just to let you in on a little open secret. Paul’s position is what is called a false dilemma since his problem is not what Christians believe. He did prove two things, and that is as a “Christian” he did not know what Christians believe and as a fundamentalist Muslim he proved he still does not know what Christians believe.

    Snowman he even had to re write scripture, specifically Romans 1 to prove his false dilemma. What does your Quran say “woe to those that write scripture with their own hand and say it is to allah” I and others have noticed that although Muslims accuse Christians of re writing our scriptures, we don’t have to since Muslims seem to do that for us.

    However the position that Anthony Rogers took in both responses is not a false dilemma, and he did not have to re write the Islamic sources to prove the actual dilemma that Muslims have and have had.

    Snow man maybe you should actually read Anthony Rogers response to see what Paul Williams is running from.

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/06/paul-innovator.html

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/06/idolatry-and-islamic-worship.html

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/06/paul-williams-unknown-and-unknowable-god.html

  2. 96of98 says:

    Ken

    Maybe we and by we I mean you should set up a mirror of Paul Williams blog where we can post comments on his articles since he is not allowing us to do so and then claiming “They can not answer us”.

    Just a thought

    • Ken Temple says:

      I wish I had time to do more – and to read all of Sam Shamoun’s articles at http://www.answering-islam.org, and keep up with so much, with care and thought. I just did what I thought I could today, but it took a lot of time to do this today as it is.

      He allowed one of my comments today and then deleted my answer to Yahya Snow. Oh well.

  3. Pingback: Paul Williams Keeps Deleting My Comments | rightwingfc

  4. bob says:

    Ken, you stated:
    “…but who eventually fall away, because they actually were never born-again in the first place.”

    This may be true in the case of Paul Williams, but 2Peter 2:21-22 (“A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”) more specifically refers to those who have been truly born-again, but then cold-shoulder Christ in preference to what the world has offer (2Timothy 4:10).

    “For if we sin wilfully after we have recieved the knowlege of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgement… Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, COUNTED THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT BY WHICH HE WAS SANCTIFIED A COMMON THING, and insulted the Spirit of grace? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10: 26-31

  5. Ken Temple says:

    Hi Bob,
    Thanks for visiting and commenting. I disagree with your interpretation, as verse 22 helps us interpret what verses 19-21 are saying. The nature of the dog and pig were not changed, so they returned to their former nature, showing that they were never truly Christians. But I know that many Christians believe that true Christians can be truly born again and then loose that salvation. I don’t agree with that, but you are free to believe that. I hope the Lord blesses you as you grow in Christ and walk with Him in fellowship with other believers in a good church – keep growing in the Lord. (John 15:1-16)

    • bob says:

      Thanks Ken,
      I see what you saying, but we cannot return to something if we never departed from it in the first place. “The nature of the dog and pig were not changed, so they returned to their former nature, showing that they were never truly [dogs and pigs].”

      As a pig is still a pig whether he is dirty or clean, so a human being still remains a human being whether he is cleansed of his sin or not. If he is cleansed and returns back to his wallowing in sin and the ways of he world, he is still a human, but is now covered in filth again, as metaphorically described in verse 22.

      This not only applies to individuals, households, villages, towns and cities, but to whole countries that were formerly Christian, but who turned their backs on Christ and returned back to the old pagan practices from which they had been formerly cleansed and freed. E.g. many countries in the Middle East were followers of Christ’s teachings until about 600 A.D. when Islam’s pagan teachings and practices began to take over, and so whole nations returned to their ‘wallowing in the mire.’

      Keep punching on (1Corinthians 9:25-26).

  6. θ says:

    “Article says: Now, you should explain what those Hadith mean about “Allah’s Shin” and “seeing Him on judgment day as clear as the sun and the moon”, etc.They are all from Sahih Al Bukhari – you cannot just dismiss them. Anthony Roger’s 2 articles still stand. You need to answer the other questions.”

    In afterlife the eyes of Moslems shall be strong enough (Q.50, v.22), different from the weakness of today’s earthy eyes (Q.6, v.103), as well as earthy nature, that can’t be exposed a bit to the powerful glory of Allah. In Q.7, v.143, it is illustrates how the mountain gets crushed to dust shortly when getting exposed to the powerful glory of Allah.
    Bukhari, Book 93, Hadith 532.
    Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: …Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than [Jabbar] the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are not our Lord.’ And none will speak to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, ‘Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?’ They will say. ‘The Shin,’ and so Allah will then uncover His Shin [Fayaquluna Saq Fayakshifu an saqihi] whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation.

    Moreover, Qur’an decisively dismisses one of the most ridiculous postulates of the Non-Moslems on Allah that He is a Moon God.
    In Q.29, v.61 the pagan Arabs confirmed that Allah is God of both the Sun and the Moon, so it is impossible for Arab heathens to consider Allah as the Moon God.

    In Q.22, v.18 Qur’an says that both the Sun and the Moon prostrate to Allah, so how can He be considered as the Moon God?

    Q.12, v.4 Qur’an says that the Moon and the Sun prostrate to Joseph who worships Allah, so how can Allah be considered as the Moon God?

    Q.6, v.77. Qur’an says that Abraham dislikes the disappearance of the Moon alongside its replacement by the bigger Sun in the morning, so how can Allah be considered as the Moon God?

    Q.41, v.37. Qur’an says that it is prohibited for anyone to prostrate before the Sun and Moon, but before Allah, so how can He be considered as the Moon God?

    Q.75, v.8. Qur’an says that the Moon would be blacked out, missing or ending its glorious light forever. So how can Allah be considered as the Moon God?

  7. Ken Temple says:

    You don’t hear me using the “Moon god” argument. I think it is a stupid argument. (Robert Morey is one of the main propagators of that theory.) He has discredited himself by bad behavior.

    • Ken Temple says:

      That being said, there are a lot of questions concerning why Muslim countries have the crescent moon on their flags many times. There are lots of different theories. (that have nothing to do with any “moon god” theory.) Do you know the reason why so many Muslim countries have the crescent moon on their flags?

Comments are closed.