The Case Against Ergun Caner

Anyone willing to look into the facts can see that Ergun Caner exaggerated and lied many times for several years about his background.  Some time ago, some Muslims had been documenting this, and in 2010 started giving the documentation to James White.  We call upon Ergun Caner to repent of this and come clean.  Ergun Caner is continuing to give ammunition for Muslims to laugh and mock the truth of Christianity.

You can see the many articles and videos here that Dr. White has made over the past few years documenting Ergun Caner’s lies and calling for his repentance.

See other documentation here.

and here.

Addendum:
The sad thing is, if Ergun Caner had not lied, he would have had a great testimony. It takes just as much of the grace God to save a teenager in the USA, who was born in Sweden, child of a Swedish mother and Turkish father, moved here when he was 2; – it takes the grace of God to save him, as it does to save a Jihadist type Muslim trained in war or terrorism. He could have shared that his father was Turkish, no problem; and that he was familiar with some of that aspect of his Turkish background and his father’s culture and Islamic religion. But he obviously grew up in the USA as they moved here from Sweden when he was 2 years old. Caner was not trained in Jihad; He was not born in Turkey; and he did not even live in Turkey (he may have visited a few times); he was not trained in Jihad in Cairo or Beruit. His high school photos show him to be a normal American kid. He is not fluent in Arabic nor Turkish. Amazing how he spoke gibberish gobblygoop and tried to pass it off as Arabic several times. As Dr. White called it – “TBN tongues”. Sad.

All people are lost and dead in sin, “there is no disinction, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Romans 3:22-23

” . . . even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”

Romans 3:22-24

Addendum 2 (January 14) – This is very good program (Pulpit and Pen with J. D. Hall interviewing James White) on why the Case against Ergun Caner matters – 1.  For the integrity of the pulpit 2.  Because Muslims are saying to Evangelicals who witness to them, “so you are like Ergun Caner, who had to lie to made his story more exciting!”.  Some have called it “Christian Deception”.

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)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Ergun Caner, Integrity, Repentance. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to The Case Against Ergun Caner

  1. Jesus says:

    Hi Ken .

    According to Muslims , more hilarious that the gimmicks of Carner and elk are the doctrines of Trinity , the God-man concept and the view that God died for our sins. They provide more ammunition to the Muslims against Christianity that anything else, and the most formidable criticism which Muslims direct towards Christianity is against those doctrines .The responses from the Christian side whether scholarly or apologetic to answer those criticism fell short by a mile .

  2. Ken Temple says:

    “elk” should be “ilk”.

    Actually, no. It is your claim that the living God is the Allah of Islam and the Qur’an, who did not even know what the doctrine of the Trinity was, that had already been established as Christian doctrine for centuries all throughout the Christian world around the Mediteranean Sea, Europe, and in the Byzantine Empire. The NT teaches Jesus is the eternal Word, the Son of God, who became flesh (John 1:1-5, 1:14; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews chapter 1, Philippians chapter 2, etc.) – all the NT books were written between 48 AD to 96 AD. All through these 27 books, written 500 + years before Muhammad – they teach these things such as the Sonship of Christ, the incarnation, the Trinity; yet your Allah suppossedly comes along 600 years later and doesn’t even know what the doctrine of the incarnation nor the Trinity is. The doctrine of the Trinity did not come into existence in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea; although it was hammered out theologically and explained more fully that Jesus was homo-ousias (of the same substance) with the Father from all eternity. Ignatius around 107-117 AD, in his writings, clearly spoke of Jesus as “God in the flesh”. Tertullian (200 AD), Irenaeus (200), Origen (250), Cyprian (250), Athanasius (died in 373), Ambrose (died in 397), Augustine (died in 430), Hillary (300-368), Gregory of Nyssa (335-395), Basil (329-379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 AD), etc. and the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), the Council of Ephesus (431), and the Council of Chalcedon (451) all taught and explained the doctrine of the Trinity very clearly, yet Muhammad and the Qur’an come along centuries later and cannot even get the doctrine that it is against correct. That shows the author of the Qur’an was ignorant of the doctrines that Christians had already been believing, preaching, and writing about for centuries.

    Another funny thing is that Islam denies real history and established historical fact, by denying that Jesus died on the cross and was put on the cross and suffered by crucifixion, the Qur’an denies history – Surah 4:157 – that is very embarressing for Muslims today.

    Dr. White clearly showed that Islam misunderstood the Trinity in his debate with Bassam Zawadi –

    • Jesus says:

      Thanks for correcting my spelling mistakes ken , i also want u to correct the wrong doctrines like the Trinity with monotheism of Abraham .

      Coming to debate , i see White at his ignorant best and Bassam at his scholarly best . Bassam actually quoted a lot of scholars and made it clear that the Quran has correctly presented the Trinity and exposed its short comings

  3. Ken Temple says:

    The author of the Qur’an obviously mis-understood the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Surah 5:72-75
    72 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

    73 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

    74 So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

    Three clear errors:
    1. Christians did not say, “Allah is the Messiah” (v. 72). Christians said and taught for centuries, “The Messiah is God in the flesh”; or “The Messiah is the eternal Son of God by nature.” or “The Messiah is God by nature and substance.”
    2. Christians never said “Allah is the third of three.” (v. 73) The doctrine of the Trinity is not “three gods”; and it is not 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Rather, “God is One God, One nature/substance/essence in three persons”.
    3. By the statement, that Jesus and Mary used to eat their food, (v. 75) the author of the Qur’an is including Mary in the Trinity, and Christians never did that. That the author of the Qur’an meant that is clear by verses 116-117, which come later. (see below)

    Surah 5:116-117
    116 And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

    117 I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

    Obviously, the author of the Qur’an thought that Mary was part of the Trinity. Christians did not teach that, even though too many started praying to Mary and making icons and statues of Mary and bowing to them – a grave mistake – that is how Muslims thought that Mary was part of the Trinity; and even today many Muslims think that. This is an obvious error in the Qur’an.

    Surah 6:101
    101 [He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion [wife, consort, sexual partner] and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.

    An obvious error in the Qur’an for thinking that Christians thought God the Father had sex with Mary. Estaqfr’allah !! استغفر الله
    That is what Mormons taught and so, by definition, Mormonism is not Christian at all and in fact, is a polytheistic non-Christian religion.

  4. Ken Temple says:

    This statement was excellent !! –

    “What made this debate rather intriguing is that it was the Christian who tried to argue that the message of the Quran is clear, whereas it was the Muslim who did his best to prove that the Muslim scripture is anything but perspicuous!” Sam Shamoun

    I remember now Dr. White making that point also. Thanks for that. I hope to read all three of your articles and also make a post in the future, Lord willing.

  5. Eddie says:

    You have called Ergun Caner to repentance, and clearly that is necessary. His statement that he made after the LU dustup was a study in non-repenatance. But what would correct repentance look like in a case like this, and judged by whom? Is there any objective criteria for this? Is there precedence for this kind of thing, and are there examples of how it was done correctly? Would there have to be a recitation of every single infraction, and in detail? Would video have to be posted to you-tube to make the repentance in the same format and as the false statements?

    The number of calls for his repentance have been multitude, but I haven’t really seen any discussion of the form that such repentance would/should take.

    There’s probably a reluctance to discuss this … nobody wants to seem to be placing themselves in the judgment seat of the Almighty, determining what correct repenance is or isn’t. We all have echoles of “Judge not lest……..” ringing in the backs of our minds, maybe legitimately.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Thanks for your comment Eddie. He should of course go to Liberty and his church and the school in Texas, confess to his pastor/leaders and then just make a video (since so much of it was public and the Muslims who recognized the lies were scandalized to blaspheme our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and laugh at Evangelical Christianity and Baptists and Southern Baptists) and totally come clean and admit the lies and admit he got carried away with exaggerations and they turned into lies in those sermons; and he should admit that he didn’t really repent before at Liberty – just saying ” I made mistatements” was not an apology or repentance; and now he should admit that he has been trying to cover it up and get rid of the evidence. He could make the video under the direction of his own pastor and elders or leadership of his local church and they would say some words also. It could be done in a sober and heart-felt way and ask for forgiveness since so much of his material is public material.

      • Eddie says:

        I agree that it would have to be in format that a Christian who is speaking to Muslims could display it and show that, yes, this man told untruths and here is his clear, unequivocal repudiation of the untruths that he told. It could actually be an evangelistic tool…..a sinner (like all of us) who was called back from his public sin, repented, and was restored! It could be an example of the power of the Gospel and a display of Christian accountability.

        The issue of accountability and repentance to his local church is important as well, but I’m guessing that his current church doesn’t feel that he needs to repent.

  6. Ken Temple says:

    If his own local church is complicit in the cover-up, as it SEEMS that others have been; then,
    what all this public outcry may do is bring to the forefront of the great need for Biblical local church discipline and accountability and a cleansing and revival in Southern Baptist Churches and other Evangelical churches.

    Matthew 18:15-20

    1 Corinthians chapter 5

    Titus 3:10

  7. Ken Temple says:

    The bigger problem is that if Caner confesses, then others are going to have to confess also for either being part of a cover-up; or just being unwilling to look into the facts of the case and being lazy and allowing Caner to do all the damage control. But Norman Geisler is implicated also, by his defense of Caner. see below.

  8. Ken Temple says:

    Are those links from James White? Did he really translate استغفر الله as may Allah forgive you? He must’ve used Google translate or Ergun Caner to translate for him. سبحان الله

    Those are my articles at Beggar’s All – I, Ken T. wrote them. See under the “categories” or “Labels” at the bottom of the articles – “Artictles by Ken T.”

    استغفرالله – I am using the way Iranians use it – it can mean “may God forgive you” or “May God pardon you” and “God forbid” and “May it never be”; “May God pardon you!”

    But it does come from a root word, غفر – which is “forgiving”, and الغفار is one of the 99 names of Allah. “the Pardoning one” and الغفور “the forgiving one”. They are both from غفر

    • JesusIsAProphet says:

      استغفر الله is an Arabic term, it means “I seek forgiveness from God”, it doesn’t mean may Allah forgive you. This is typical of how Ergun Caner tries to spin it, “oh its the Irianian way.” غفر الله لك is what you’re looking for. I am native Arabic speaker so you know

      • Ken Temple says:

        This has nothing to do with Caner. He doesn’t know Farsi or Arabic or even Turkish. I caught even making mistakes in Turkish and my Turkish is not that great. But I do speak Farsi.

        Ok, I believe you that you are a native Arabic speaker; but I am fluent in Farsi and that is how the Iranians use it – I realize that it is originally Arabic. The Iranians have their own word (s) for “I seek”, but they used it in certain contexts that give the meaning, “May God forgive you” or denying something. Iranians don’t know Arabic that well in Arabic sentences and grammar. Their language, Farsi, has 35-40 % Arabic in it; and they pronounce the words differently and sometimes, even change the meaning slightly.

        This is not “google translate” but it is an online Farsi dictionary – a combination of several official book dictionaries – very good quality.

        http://www.vajehyab.com/?q=استغفرالله

        it gives three meanings 1. for seeking forgiveness 2. for denying something 3. for expressing outrage and anger at something.

        You may not like it that it sort of changes from one language to another, but that is the reality. Nevertheless, it has to do with seeking forgiveness. My Iranian friends would especially say it when someone says something that is cutting down oneself – and they would use this to say, “Don’t say that! Don’t cut yourself down! May Allah forgive you for saying that!”

        There are some words and phrases they use from Arabic and put a different spin on it. Like عزیز / عزیزی (Aziz and Azizi ) – tell me the meaning of Aziz in Arabic, if you don’t mind, please.

      • JesusIsAProphet says:

        I wouldn’t know again if that’s the case in Persian, but if you tell any non-Persian Muslim (I’d imagine any non-Shii persian as well) that استغفر الله means “May Allah forgive you” they’re going to stop listening to you and brand you as ignorant.

        عزيز has some related meanings, but in collequial day to day Arabic they used to mean dear or “honey” like we do in English (it doesn’t mean honey, I’m just trying to find a slang term thats kinda like it since we’re translating it in slang.) In the Qur’an, Allah is referred to العزيز meaning كامل القوة، عظيم القدرة، شامل العزة Complete power, awesome ability and completely glorious Glorified is He

      • JesusIsAProphet says:

        I just reread your post, its not about liking it or not, but that term has an Islamic connation, so when you are witnessing to Muslims and using their terms, you’re going to want to use it like how they use it or else you’re going to come off as ignorant. Its really much like when Caner said Muslims fast forty days, then when he got caught in his lie, decided that he was going to find some random sect somewhere and claim he was that even though he claimed he was a strict sunni.

        I’ll give it you another way. We have this Christian Persian convert at our Masjid. If you came to preach to him and told him that استغفر الله means “May Allah forgive you” he might agree that in your culture that maybe the case, but he’s going to brand you as ignorant for not knowing that the way Muslims use it is “I seek forgiveness with God.” This is considered a special prayer for Muslims and you just come off as thinking the شهادة is the الفاتحة like Caner did.

      • JesusIsAProphet says:

        I’m sorry about leaving so many replies so if you’d like to delete some or put them all into one reply I won’t mind; I’m not here to troll or cause trouble. Its just I was thinking about this issue some more and the article you linked me to just is no good because its teaching Christians how to witness to Muslims by teaching them something that seems to be common amongst the Christians and the Liberals and maybe Shi’is of Iran. You would want them to know what the majority of Muslims think. Just like how the Qur’an teaches how the majority of Christians think and not just what 1% of them think. It’d be like if a Catholic said we didn’t understand Christianity because the Qur’an presented Calvin’s thoughts and we turned around and said, “well there’s a sect somewhere in America that believes this.”

    • JesusIsAProphet says:

      For the record, I dont’ speak Persian, but I just typed استغفر الله into Google translate and it doesn’t seem to have any specific Persian use. I’d recommend to check your sources because you’re going to come off as ignorant to the 95% of Muslims that don’t speak Persian. This is sincere advice and you can delete it after you read it.

      • Ken Temple says:

        No problem as to the posts. You are correct about using استغفر الله with other Muslims. I know how Iranians use it; but thanks for educating me for how that would come across to other Muslims. Some Iranians know Arabic fluently – the religious leaders – They would probably agree with you on the exact meaning. I am just relating the honest context of the way Iranians use it in a group setting – saying it after someone tries to be humble and cut themselves down. Maybe they meant it as “I seek forgiveness from Allah”, but it doesn’t come across that way, since it was in response to someone else doing the wrong deed or saying something negative.

        Iranians use “aziz” and Azizi” for “dear” and “honey” and “precious” – (I did not know Arabic speakers used that word that way also, but you confirmed it.) seems not like the meaning I have seen it in books on the Arabic meaning – Sublime, awesome – as you said –
        “Complete power, awesome ability and completely glorious Glorified is He”

        Its 1:30 am; I am sleepy; so good night for now. تصبح علی خیر

      • JesusIsAProphet says:

        The religious leaders knowledge of Arabic in Iran is not much better than Ergun Caner’s 😉

  9. Ken Temple says:

    I’d like to also add that, what difference does it make if you consider Mother Mary or the Holy Spirit a third of a three?

    Because it shows the Qur’an was not authored or inspired by the one true God. It shows that Muhammad and early Muslims misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity. Even if they had “the Holy Spirit” in there instead of Mary, to call it “a third of three” is also inaccurate; because “one third” is not part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore the Qur’an makes at least two mistakes in these verses. 1. Mary is not part of the Trinity. 2. “third of three” is the wrong way to say what Christians believed at the time; because the Qur’an presents it as “one third of three gods”. Christians never believed in 3 gods. If Qur’an was inspired by the true God, it would at least accurately critique the doctrine, and use terms like “The Christians say “we worship one God in three persons” and “Unitas Trinitas”, etc. 3. The third mistake is the Qur’an’s understanding of the phrase “Son of God” as physical and implies that it means that God took a wife and had sex. – Qur’an Surah 6:101; 19:88-92. Again, this shows the Living God did not inspire the Qur’an.

    It’s still idolatry either way.
    Since both “third of three” and putting Mary in the Trinity are both wrong; then it is a strawman argument.

    Nitpicking that Muslims don’t “understand” your version of the trinity (which is of course an extreme minority) doesn’t change the point that our problem with your religion is you preach polytheism

    My version of the Trinity is the same as the historic view – Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Ignatius (107 AD), Nicean Creed (325 AD), Constantinople (381 AD), Athanasius (died in 373 AD), Cappodocian fathers (381 AD), Augustine (died in 430 AD), Hillary(300s), Calvin (1500s), Luther (1500s), etc. Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox are all in agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity, so it is not a minority view. Even Roman Catholics don’t believe Mary is part of the Trinity, even if they, unfortunately give that wrong impression by all the statues and icons and praying to her.

    • JesusIsAProphet says:

      Actually, the Qur’an is criticizing you for taking Jesus and Mary as gods, the fact is the Qur’an say, “أأنت قلت للناس اتخذوني وامي إلهين من دون إله” “Did you tell the people, ‘take me and mother as Gods besides Allah?” it does not refer to the Trinity, but rather how the Christians worship Jesus and Mary besides God. The reality is Christians don’t worship the Holy Spirit or really know what they mean by it. In fact you never showed any Ayaat which the Qur’an refers to Mary as being part of the trinity, just that she is worshiped besides God. Reflect غفر الله لك وهداك لما يحبه ويرضاه:

      Surah 5:72-75
      72 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

      73 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

      74 So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

      75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

      Three clear errors:
      1. Christians did not say, “Allah is the Messiah” (v. 72). Christians said and taught for centuries, “The Messiah is God in the flesh”; or “The Messiah is the eternal Son of God by nature.” or “The Messiah is God by nature and substance.”

      The Qur’an is not a book on Christian theology, its just a book on why Christian theology is blasphemous. The Messiah is God in the flesh is definitly worse than simply God is the Messiah, i.e. God is Jesus.

      2. Christians never said “Allah is the third of three.” (v. 73) The doctrine of the Trinity is not “three gods”; and it is not 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Rather, “God is One God, One nature/substance/essence in three persons”.

      So God is three, just like the Qur’an says. God is one of three is the same as three persons. How that makes sense to you but then say my brain is “fried” is beyond me. الله يهديك ويغفر لك

      3. By the statement, that Jesus and Mary used to eat their food, (v. 75) the author of the Qur’an is including Mary in the Trinity, and Christians never did that. That the author of the Qur’an meant that is clear by verses 116-117, which come later. (see below)

      Actually, God is telling you that Mary and Jesus are normal people and should not be worshipped. Christians don’t worship the Holy Spirit nor have a clear idea of what they mean by it so its really a moot point to reference it. Christians worship Mary and Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, or more importantly, God. The fact that’d you like that to mean that the Qur’an is referreing to your very specific view (i.e. you represent a sect, which is part of a sect, which is part of Evangelical Christianity which is a minority sect in Christian, i.e. you represent maybe 1% of classical Christianity. Your claim that you are the “historical” Christian is the same claim Ergun claims, the same thing the catholics claim, and the same the Orthodox claim. I say you guys are all arguing over something that is both blasphemous and doesn’t make sense so of course you’ll come to these extremely different variations then get upset the Qur’an doesn’t mention your specific doctorine and somehow that’s an error. Amazing really since Calvinism didn’t exisist during the time of the Qur’an….

  10. Ken Temple says:

    ” . . . it should be no surprise that you guys are that rude to us.”

    When Muslims continue to accuse us of “you believe in three gods” – as you also keep doing here; it SEEMS that your brain fries when we go too fast in explaining the Trinity, and even when we explain the difference between substance/essence vs. person. That is a honest assessment of 30 years of experience of trying to explain the Trinity to Muslims, as they usually don’t listen and respond with emotion and putting up walls. La! (No !), etc.

    Sorry if that was rude; it is my own experience of what it seems like of the reactions I have gotten from average Muslims in these 30 years.

    • JesusIsAProphet says:

      Well I’ll tell you something, I find Calivinists to be the best of Christians, but comments like “Abdul Aziz…” is something kind of racist don’t you think? I love being called that because it means Servant of the Most Powerful or the All-Powerful so that is an amazing title, but still, obviously you can see why I feel why something like that comes off as extremely disrespectful and not really something you’d link me to me if you really wanted to witness to me. However, I’d like to have a conversation with you over e-mail, I can leave my real e-mail since I don’t want my e-mail all over the internet and you can delete if you’d like to have a conversation.

      Peace

      • Ken Temple says:

        Thanks – شکراً –
        Thanks for the nice comment about Calvinists! How did you come to that conclusion?

        I don’t see how it is “racist”. How is that racist or disrespectful to one’s ethnicity? Muslims are many different ethnicities, so it really had nothing to do with ethnicity or race. It was showing how strong the doctrine of the Oneness of Allah ( توحید ) is in Islam in the Muslim mindset and is difficult to overcome by going too fast on the Trinity.

        It may be rude by the comment about “brain frying”, ie, “cannot handle the complicated nature of the doctrine”; it may come across as calling someone “stupid”; but not racist.
        Of course I never meant it to be saying that Muslims are stupid; no way. My Arab, Iranian, Turkish, Pakistani friends are very smart; many of them are engineers and mathematicians and doctors – smarter than me! I was only trying to show the depth of the intensity of the Islamic Unitarian Monotheism even when we explain the Trinity; we are still accussed of saying that there are three gods. (which you wrote again above.)

        But I thank you for pointing out, and I apologize – I may change that on my article. It is not meant to say “all Muslims cannot think”, nor they are “stupid”, etc. – it is meant to emphasize that we have to slow down explaining the doctrine, since most Muslims already believe we believe in three gods; so we first have to show them that we believe in only one God; and then explain the “three persons” part.

        I just chose a common name for many Muslims, as an example; it honestly seems to me; that when we explain the Trinity and Deity of Christ and Sonship of Christ, many Muslims will still say, “you believe in three gods” – when we don’t and we never have. When we explain the different categories of “nature” (God is One in substance and nature) vs. “person” (three persons in eternal personal fellowship); we still get a lot of just denial and saying “no, you believe in three gods” type of arguments.

        No need to put your email up here – I can see it in the dashboard of my blog. Maybe later I will initiate an email later. ان شاءالله Let’s keep the conversation here for now.

  11. JesusIsAProphet says:

    Thanks – شکراً –
    Thanks for the nice comment about Calvinists! How did you come to that conclusion?
    Well because they seem to be up front and when they criticize they don’t do it to be hurtful or mean. Meaning, we can disagree with each other, but at the end of the day I feel like you want what’s best for me like what I want what’s best for you. I do not feel that way with most American and Arab Christians such as the Ergun Caners and the Pat Robertsons. Some Catholics and Orthodox are also respectful, but I prefer Calvinists because I agree their doctrine is not as blasphemous in my eyes as “eastern” Christianity. Also, I’ve seen some of the discussions between Calvinists and Armenians (I’m ignorant of the details of course, I only know about them because I like to read about Ergun) but what I’ve seen seems to be that your side is closer to the truth in those discussions.
    I don’t see how it is “racist”. How is that racist or disrespectful to one’s ethnicity? Muslims are many different ethnicities, so it really had nothing to do with ethnicity or race. It was showing how strong the doctrine of the Oneness of Allah ( توحید ) is in Islam in the Muslim mindset and is difficult to overcome by going too fast on the Trinity.
    Well I think if I put it a different way you might understand it better. Lets say I wanted to preach to Church but most of them were Mexicans, so I said, “Don’t go too fast with your preaching because Jose’s brain is gonna get fried” or if it was an African American Church and I said, “Don’t go too fast or else Trayvon’s brain is gonna get fried” you would understand that it is just an offensive way to put something. It was just more the way he phrased it; again, replace Abdul Aziz with Jose, Trayvon or Bruce Lee and you’ll hopefully see my point.
    It may be rude by the comment about “brain frying”, ie, “cannot handle the complicated nature of the doctrine”; it may come across as calling someone “stupid”; but not racist.
    Hopefully I can explained this clearly, it wasn’t about the brain frying part but the generic Abdul Aziz, although again, I wouldn’t have personally phrased it that way.
    Of course I never meant it to be saying that Muslims are stupid; no way. My Arab, Iranian, Turkish, Pakistani friends are very smart; many of them are engineers and mathematicians and doctors – smarter than me! I was only trying to show the depth of the intensity of the Islamic Unitarian Monotheism even when we explain the Trinity; we are still accussed of saying that there are three gods. (which you wrote again above.)
    I’d say that you should reflect on why that doctrine is so powerful in the Muslim. I grew up and became an atheist and then came back to Islam in my mid-20s, I’ll tell you never did I ever consider any other religion beside Islam and this is despite the fact that I’m raised in America and all my friends are Christians (well during this point atheist). I say reflect on why Christians refer to the trinity as a mystery but Muslims refer to tawheed as FACT.

    But I thank you for pointing out, and I apologize – I may change that on my article. It is not meant to say “all Muslims cannot think”, nor they are “stupid”, etc. – it is meant to emphasize that we have to slow down explaining the doctrine, since most Muslims already believe we believe in three gods; so we first have to show them that we believe in only one God; and then explain the “three persons” part.
    I’m going to advise you and tell you this won’t happen. The reason is accepting one God is a lot easier than accepting the concept of the trinity, even if you believe that it means one God (which I as a person who grew up in the United States does not agree with you, and don’t forget that atheists, Hindus and Jews also believe Christians believe in three gods, so its not just Muslims, its pretty much everyone who is not Christian). The person has two options, either believe in one God and just leave it at that, or else they have to accept this extra doctrine called Trinity. See I can preach in a mosque all I want about Islamic creed, what we believe etc, but the laymen Muslim only cares about one God, that’s it. He doesn’t think about predestination versus free will, he doesn’t think about literal vs figurative, he just wants to work on his relationship with God. This is why the mosques are full in America while the Churches are empty; people are there to worship God, not to get into this philosophical discussion about the “nature” of God. I’ll give you an example, in the Muslim world, our Scholars study a type of philosophy called “Kalaam” and they swear this is the orthodox view of Islam. Yet, none of them will ever speak of this philosophy at a Friday sermon. Do you know why? Because its complicated and the laymen Muslims don’t care. Go to any philosophy faculty on any college campus and you’ll find even the most educated and brightest minds don’t care about philosophy; therefore neither will the rest of the population, especially on decisive issues such as religion. That’s why the Trinity doesn’t resonate, it requires too much explanation for it to be the creed of all mankind. For a religion to be true, it needs to be easily understood. One God, do good=heaven, do bad=hell. Trust me, preach this message and you’ll see church attendance up

  12. Ken Temple says:

    The religious leaders knowledge of Arabic in Iran is not much better than Ergun Caner’s

    Don’t be offended by this, but I cannot resist – but it was under the second Caliph, Omar ibn Khattab, who attacked Persia in Jihad – and it took some 300 years to subjugate the Persians – it was the Arab Muslims who forced the Persians to accept Islam and so they incorporated Arabic into their Persian language, and changed their script to the Arabic script. That’s just historical fact. They were mostly Sunni until around the 1500s, when a Safavid Shah declared that they would become Shi’ite. Even that was from the Arabs in Southern Iraq, the historical stronghold of Shi’ite Islam. (Najaf, Kufa, Karbala)

    So, they learned it all from the Arabs. 🙂

  13. Ken Temple says:

    When some Christian says, “Jesus is the Son of God” or “Jesus is God in the flesh”, and a Muslim says “Estaqfr’allah!” – استغفرالله
    – how does that make sense if it means literally “I seek the forgiveness of Allah” ? – “I seek” is confusing me, becuase the “I” didn’t do the wrong thing or say the suppossedly blasphemous statement – the other person said the blasphemous statement, so why would the Muslim say “I seek God’s forgiveness/pardon”? Does it mean “I seek God’s forgiveness (for you who said that)” ??

  14. Ken Temple says:

    Ok, I removed the comment about “Abdul Aziz’ and “brain fries”; and I can see your point better when you gave more examples.

  15. Ken Temple says:

    Astaghfirullah – is that some kind of official / formal / set rules way of writing phonetics in English transliteration?

    I know the word in Farsi, the way Iranians say it and I know it by the Persian/Arabic script. I am just guessing at the English transliteration. I have seen both “q” and “gh” being used for غ and ق

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Yes that is the official/formal/set way of writing it out.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Where is the official guide to that? Because I did not learn the English transliteration; I actually learned the Farsi script and speaking and so I am guessing at the English transliterations. Some of them I don’t agree with, that I have seen. I recognize Arabic words because of Farsi, but Iranians pronounce the Arabic words differently, as do the Turks.

  16. Ken Temple says:

    Also, I’ve seen some of the discussions between Calvinists and Armenians (I’m ignorant of the details of course, I only know about them because I like to read about Ergun) but what I’ve seen seems to be that your side is closer to the truth in those discussions.

    Just for your information – Should be “Arminians” – Arminian is the person who holds to Arminian theology.
    Armenian is the ethnic people group in Eastern Turkey and the country of Armenia.

    I appreciate what you are saying about being up front and honest and the Calvinist side of affirming the Sovereignty of God and doctrine.

  17. Ken Temple says:

    For a religion to be true, it needs to be easily understood.

    Not true, it takes the grace and mercy of God to come and open people’s hearts and minds to understand and see the truth. Acts 16:14 – “The Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the things that Paul was preaching.” Luke 24:45 – Jesus opened the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the Scriptures.

    Ezekiel 36:26-27 – “I will take away your heart of stone and give you a new heart, a soft heart, . . . I will put My Spirit in you . . . I will cause you to walk in my statues.”

    John 3:1-8 – summary – “You must be born again, born from above, born of the Spirit of God – just as the wind blows and you cannot control it or know where it is going or where is came from, so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

    John 6:44, 65 – “no one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”

    You will never understand until the Spirit of God opens your heart.

    Similar to this concept – Many Muslims have said “May Allah open his heart for this” and many times in Qur’an and Hadith it says, “Allah opened his chest for this or that” (chest meaning heart)

    One God, do good=heaven, do bad=hell. Trust me, preach this message and you’ll see church attendance up

    We don’t change the message in order to get more people to come to church. That’s what a lot of Arminian types do – called the Seeker Sensitive Movement, etc.

    Also see here – we respect the text of Scripture first, then the meaning and message; and don’t change the message.
    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/man-made-religion-tries-to-make-god-more-understandable/

    • JesusIsAProphet says:

      How’s it going Ken?

      As far as the concept that only God guides, then this is also the orthodox Islamic position; God guides while we just spread the message; if you accept ok and if you don’t accept then your situation is up to God. As the Prophet Mohammed would begin his sermons, he would often say, “من يهده الله فلا مضل له ومن يضلل فلا هادي له” whoever Allah guides then none can misguide him, and whoever He allows to be astray then none can guide. However, I think we’re talking about two different things if you don’t mind:

      1) Regarding the sovereignty of God and how He is the only one that guides, creates, provides etc. We refer to this as توحيد الربوبية the Tahweed/Monotheism of Lordship; meaning this concept is what we refer to as singing out God and giving him his due in regards to his Lordship. He is the only Lord, only creator, sustainer, and ruler. This is why when we pray five times a day we say, “All praise is due and belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds, The Most Merciful the Ever Merciful, the Master of the Day of judgment, it is you ONLY that we worship and it is you ONLY that we seek help from, therefore guide us to the straight path.” Meaning the only person that can guide us to, and keep us upon the straight path is God; not the angels, not the prophets, and not the philosophers.

      2) As far as changing the message, then I say then this is definitely not allowed. However, my point was that for a religion to be true, it has to make sense to everyone; from the bedioun/hillbilly to the academic; you shouldn’t need any extra knowledge to understand it. Especially if that knowledge is something that not everyone is capable of attaining. Again, they are not able to attain it, not because they are not righteous enough, but rather because they are not “smart” enough. I hope that was clear

  18. Pingback: The cultural tendency of the Muslim world to cover up their sins | apologeticsandagape

  19. θ says:

    Israel state is example that the Jewish religious-motivated crime, terrorism and violence against Palestinians since 1948 isn’t a reason to outlaw the Tanach (of Jews) or the Gospel (of Pro-Israel Christians).

    When a person admits he does a violence with motivation of religion, it means:
    (i) he hates his religion because he is supposed to protect the honor of his religion from any hateful accusation.
    (ii) he challenges the court to seek, arrest and penalise his religion (as if it were a person).
    (iii) the court is guilty of having punished a crazy man based primarily on the immaterial thing like religion.

    It is principle of universal justice, including in Secularism, that a person’s religion cannot be a reason – other than the real material evidences – to judge or indict a person in the court.

    Far from being religious zealots, there’s a fact many people involved in so-called Jihad terrorism were not particularly observant of Islam. There’s indication they prefer to use Jihad to gain some respect from other criminal groups, or to have their criminal activities got protection by immigrants in the West.
    http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/files/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf

    The Madrid terrorists were primarily composed of 1st generation North African Muslim men, approximately 30 years old and younger, who fell on both ends of the spectrum of life-success. Some were drug dealers, part-time workers and drifting students. Many of them had criminal records in Spain for drug trafficking and other petty crimes. Others were students, who were doing well in school and appeared to have promising futures. The Spanish authorities never imagined that a group of petty drug traffickers and university students were capable of planning such a massive attack.

    Jamal Ahmidan, a Moroccan considered the operational planner, was said to have been happily integrated in Spanish society. His Spanish friends included women who sported crop tops, tattoos and piercings.2
    Ahmidan had immigrated to Spain in the 1990’s and became the head of an ecstasy and hashish network that was run by close family members based in both Morocco and Spain.

    Mohamed and Rachid Ouland Akcha, were also part of this drug network.

    Jamal Zougam was born in Tangier, Morocco and had lived in Spain since 1983. He and his half-brother Mohammed Chaoui had opened up their own mobile phone shop. Jamal Zougam was described as handsome, likable and one of the more popular youths among the Moroccan community living in Madrid. He enjoyed alcohol, women, and discos and seemed to be perfectly integrated into Spanish society.3
    Although Ahmidan stopped drinking and using drugs following his transformation, he continued to sell drugs to non Muslims. 42
    Jamal Ahmidan used his ties to a Moroccan hashish gang to barter drugs for dynamite.
    The group rented a house in Chinchon for storing the hashish, dynamite and ultimately building the bombs. 58
    On March 4th, Jamal Zougam, purchased and supplied 20 stolen Mitsubishi Tritium T110 mobile phones cell phones to serve as detonators. 59

    James Elshafay was a troubled young man who was looking for direction in life. He was the 19 year-old son of an Egyptian father and Irish Catholic mother. He converted to Islam at around age 12, at his Egyptian father’s insistence and dropped out of school after failing three times to complete the ninth grade. Elshafay spent his teen years drinking and taking drugs.

  20. Ken Temple says:

    Those examples have nothing to do with this post about Ergun Caner – what is the relationship to the article?

    That said, ok, some Muslims are like that that have done those things; even though those are examples of troubled Muslim youths who later turn to terrorism; – other Muslims like
    Al Baghdadi (scholar and Phd in Islam), Ayman Al Zawahiri (eye doctor in Egypt), and Ben Laden (multi-millionaire Saudi luxury life) do not fit into those categories of “troubled youth” or former criminals. What about the medical doctor (Bilal Abdullah) and engineer (Khalid Ahmed) who did the Glasgow airport bombing on June 30, 2007 ?

    “Police identified the two men as Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, and Kafeel Ahmed, also known as Khalid Ahmed, an engineer and the driver . . . ” (from the wikipedia article)

  21. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says:… do not fit into those categories of “troubled youth” or former criminals. ”

    The pattern of Modern radicalism showed that the “intellectuals” never carried out terrors directly, they aren’t the field operatives. Troubled youths are real terror operatives.

  22. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: What about the doctor and the engineer that I cited above?”

    There’s no casualties. Intellectuals can’t be the field operative: either they messed up or failed.

  23. Ken Temple says:

    But the intellectual leaders and scholars are the ones who persuade and convince and even command and organize (buy materials, have land, camps, training centers, plans) their students to do those things. They are the leaders and have foot soldiers. They are responsible also.

  24. Ken Temple says:

    But this issue has nothing to do with the post about Ergun Caner.

  25. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: They are the leaders and have foot soldiers. They are responsible also.
    But this issue has nothing to do with the post about Ergun Caner.”

    I forget to mention that I commented the previous misleading comment: “…..and it took some 300 years to subjugate the Persians – it was the Arab Muslims who forced the Persians to accept Islam…”

    Jihad has nothing to do with the forced conversion. Violent verses of Qur’an appear just 2.1% of total verses, hence violence is not inherent in Islam.
    Scriptures are the words of Merciful God, hence violent verses are not dominant in either Qur’an or the Bible. But it is misleading to say that the violent verses of the Bible are limited in Canaan land.
    A little bit similar to feast of Karbala, Jews do celebrate Purim annually to justify the “Collective Punishment” on so many innocent Persians of 10 cities, especially at Shushan.

  26. Ken Temple says:

    The Hadith clearly says, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say “there is no God but Allah” . . . ” Sounds like force to me.

    Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

    Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:

    Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387)

  27. Ken Temple says:

    Violent verses of Qur’an appear just 2.1% of total verses, hence violence is not inherent in Islam.

    % of verses is not a good way to evaluate if the religion is violent or not. Islam is more than the Qur’an anyway. It also includes Sunna, Sira, AHadith, Tarikh, Tafsirs, & Fiq

    There were many battles that Muhammad ordered and took part in. Umar and Caliphs after him kept on fighting and conquering. Aggresively conquered Middle East, North Africa, Persian Empire, etc. Kept on in India, etc. The Seljuk and Ottomans Turks also were aggressive and attacked Europe constantly. Islam seems to be inherently violent. Muslims and Hindus still fighting against each other today, etc.

    Christianity was opposite in NT and early history – first 3- 4 centuries – non-violence. Till 380 AD.

  28. Ken Temple says:

    Violence in OT is limited to the land of Canaan and the establishment of the state of Israel under David and Solomon. They did not have permission to fight beyond the promised land borders.

    Anyway, the NT teaches against that, which shows it was a temporary thing.

  29. θ says:

    You don’t understand what we Moslems believe.
    Prophet Muhammad is ordered to use the force available for Monotheism, but not to force anyone for the “conversion into Islam” (he doesn’t require the people to say 2nd part of Shahada of his Prophethood nor Qur’an), in which he just acts like a soft preacher, not as dictator: “Thou are not a dictator over them”.

    Jami` at-Tirmidhi, The Book on Tafsir, Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3341.
    Jabir narrated that :
    The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: ‘La ilaha illallah’. So when they say that, their blood and their wealth are safe from me, except for a right, and their reckoning is for Allah.” Then he recited: So remind them – you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them.
    حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ أَبِي الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهَا وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ قَرَأَ ‏:‏ ‏(‏ إنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُذَكِّرٌ * لَسْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِمُسَيْطِرٍ ‏)‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ ‏.‏

    • Ken Temple says:

      Not true – Islam forces people to Islam; you even admit – forcing the pagans to monotheism is force. And Abu Bakr forced the Muslims who were not paying Zakat to pay.
      The Hadith includes force to become Muslims.

      Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

      Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

      Narrated Anas bin Malik:

      Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387)

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Not true – Islam forces people to Islam; you even admit – forcing the pagans to monotheism is force. ”

        Monotheism doesn’t mean Islam. Qur’an uses specific words “there’s no compulsion in religion”, not compulsion into monotheism or faith.
        It is possible that the commandment to use the force for monotheism is derived from the ancient Hanif (Abrahamic) religion which Prophet Muhammad knew well before the time of his Prophethood, but certainly he didn’t practice it. Nobody was killed by his hands. However, after the appointment as Prophet, the new order for him turns to be “there’s no compulsion in religion”.

        “Ken Temple says: And Abu Bakr forced the Muslims who were not paying Zakat to pay.”

        What Abu Bakr did is the punishment on apostates, both military and enslavement (imprisonment), hence it is called Ridda war (War of Apostasy).

        “Ken Temple says: The Hadith includes force to become Muslims. Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)”

        The narration of Hadith doesn’t contradict with other similar Hadith on “I have been ordered” because the specific “fighting” is ordered specifically once only for testifying the Monotheism of Allah. There’s no repetition of word “fighting” mentioned to indicate another use of force for the testifying of Prophethood.

  30. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Anyway, the NT teaches against that, which shows it was a temporary thing.”

    The NT teaches and approves the use of all violence on the lands occupied by Roman empire.
    (i) “For he is the minister of God, a revenger (terrorists) to execute wrath (violence) upon him that doeth evil”.
    (ii) “For they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this (poll-tax, conquest) very thing”.

    Rom 13
    3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

  31. Ken Temple says:

    That is talking about police work and just war (self-defense) nothing about attacking other countries or converting people by force.

    “to execute wrath upon him that does evil” (breaking the law; murders, rapists, thieves, etc.)

    Nothing about converting people to religion there.

  32. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: That is talking about police work and just war (self-defense) nothing about attacking other countries or converting people by force.”

    Roman empire itself is “other country” that depended on a continuous attack, plundering, spoiling, and subjecting other people in other countries to Caesar’s dominance, in order to collect tributary thru violence, military conquest and invasion.
    Paul says the exact words: subject, tribute, attending (invasion), continually.
    Rom 13
    5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

    Re-phrasing.
    “Ken Temple says: Not true – Islam forces people to Islam; you even admit – forcing the pagans to monotheism is force. ”

    Monotheism doesn’t mean Islam. Qur’an uses specific words “there’s no compulsion in religion”, not compulsion into monotheism or faith.
    It is possible that the commandment to use the force for monotheism is derived from the ancient Hanif (Abrahamic) religion which Prophet Muhammad knew well before the time of his Prophethood, but certainly he didn’t practice it. Nobody was killed by his hands. However, after the appointment as Prophet, the new order for him turns to be “there’s no compulsion in religion”.

    “Ken Temple says: And Abu Bakr forced the Muslims who were not paying Zakat to pay.”

    What Abu Bakr did is the punishment on apostates, both military and enslavement (imprisonment), hence it is called Ridda war (War of Apostasy).

    “Ken Temple says: The Hadith includes force to become Muslims. Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)”

    The narration of Hadith doesn’t contradict other similar Hadith on “I have been ordered” because the specific word “to fight” is mentioned only once, that is for the testifying of Monotheism of Allah. There’s no repetition of the word “fight” mentioned again, that may have indicated another use of force for the testifying of Prophethood, that’s why he says otherwise in other Hadith: “…Then he recited: ‘So remind them – you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them’ “.

Comments are closed.