The cultural tendency of the Muslim world to cover up their sins

Islam talks about internal sins a little bit but not very much ; it is not an emphasis in Islam to deal with the roots of internal sins; and there is no solution in Islam  to arrogance and pride and lust and jealousy and rancor and hatred and spite in the heart. Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9

The emphasis in Islam is the rituals (and external societal behavior) – the five pillars of Islam and they are mostly about saying the right words . 1.  (The confession of the shahada – the Islamic confession that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet”) and doing the right ritual deeds – 2. The ritual prayers five times a day 3. fasting during the month of Ramadan, 4. giving alms to the poor called  Zakat, 5. And going on pilgrimage to Mecca once in your lifetime. 6. Some Muslim scholars say Jihad is the sixth pillar of action .  There is also in Islam what is called the five pillars of belief, actually six, and that is 1. monotheism about God or Towheed  2.  the prophets of God 3. the books of God 4. angels and demons 5. heaven and hell and 6. predestination.
These are the two categories – the two groups of pillars that people are talking about when they are talking about what Islam is.  This demonstrates there is no emphasis on understanding that a person is a sinner and lost and on his way to hell and has no hope of salvation – there is no forgiveness without the cross of Jesus the Messiah and his powerful resurrection from the dead and all that the New Testament teaches about who he is.

Apologetics and Agape

Paul Williams wrote: (at his old blog, no longer available)  (quoting Hamza Yusuf)
“We must remember that if a person has done wrong his spiritual path is not severed. There is recourse. One seeks repentance with God. One should not confess or broadcast what one has done. If God has veiled one’s wrongdoing, do not tear the veil down.
There is a hadith in which a man came to the Prophet (upon whom be peace) and said “I committed a sin,” and he meant adultery. “So punish me.” But the Prophet (pbuh) turned and walked away. The man pursued the Prophet (pbuh) and told him again that he wanted to be punished for his sin. The Prophet (pbuh) finally looked at him and asked him if he made ablution and prayed. He was telling him that Islam purifies. The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Whoever does indecency, let him veil his acts with the…

View original post 1,993 more words

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 Islam, Muslims, Salvation, Sin in Islam. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to The cultural tendency of the Muslim world to cover up their sins

  1. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    “That is the point – you are not allowed to tell me, “don’t go into the atonement, etc.” – because that is precisely THE ONLY ANSWER to the problem of sin. Your religion gutted truth of all hope, forgiveness, and love. Islam empties the truth and turns it into the biggest lie ever propagated, that Al Masih did not die on the cross for sins. (Surah 4:157) This is the biggest lie for the past 1400 years, after the other big lie, “there is no god”, said by atheists and Darwinian naturalism.”

    Sigh. No Ken, in fact your missing the point. We each have different ideas about the problem of sin. That much is obvious. We can have a discussion on that another time, but it’s NOT what i asked. So i’ll ask it again, since you’ve admitted that Islam deals with internal sins sometimes or a little, what would an acceptable amount look like to you? And i’d like you to be as specific and detailed as possible.

    For example please show how “little” Islamic texts deal with internal sins and compare it with the amount you’d like to see. An amount that would elevate the current texts from a “little” to “a lot”. I mean how much more does it need to be? verses? chapters? entire hadith books? I understand you believe it’s truly impossible without the death on the cross but again you’ve already admitted that they deal with it a “little” so it shouldn’t be hard to articulate what a “lot” should look like text wise.

    • Ken Temple says:

      No, you are missing the point. Thanks for commenting.
      Read the whole article I wrote and the link to the older one – there is nothing about sin in the five or six pillars of deeds or 5 or 6 pillars of belief. there is not much about internal sins elsewhere. It is not an emphasis, since Islam things humans are good by nature (Fitreh فطره ) Muslims have told me this – mankind is good and it is the environment that led people astray (parents, circumstances, poverty, growing up Hindu or Christian or Jewish or Buddhist) – the emphasis is not seeing that the root is selfishness, pride, lust, greed, jealousies, rancor, spite, hatred – IN THE HEART. That is why the Sufi movement started – they realized the lack of internal relational things; lack of the love of God; and lack of emphasis in dealing with internal sin. See more details in the article.

    • Ken Temple says:

      The 5-6 pillars of action are just that – deeds; external deeds; rituals.

      The 6 pillars of belief are just agreement with 6 doctrines.

      Islamic societies and governments are about external law in society and punishments for violations.

      Not much about internal sins.

      Not much understanding of the nature of mankind.

      Outright denial of original sin and corruption from conception and birth that grows in the human as they develop. (pride, arrogance, selfishness, lust, greed, jealousies, rancor, anger, spite, hatred, etc.)

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple
        So am i correct in assuming what a “lot” of emphasis would look like to you is not verses,chapters, or hadith books, but something like mentioning internal sins among the 5 pillars or 6 articles of belief?

      • Ken Temple says:

        It is not also not an over-riding emphasis in Islam (Qur’an, Hadith) because Islam rejects that we are sinners by nature. فطره

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple
        “It is not also not an over-riding emphasis in Islam (Qur’an, Hadith) because Islam rejects that we are sinners by nature. فطره”

        …So is that a yes or a no to my question?

      • Ken Temple says:

        what part of “not also” do you not understand?

        Sin is not discussed as understanding how to become a Muslim, except to say the Shahada. (in the 6 pillars of both deeds and belief)

        It is not in those 5-6 pillars of each category. (deeds and faith)

        It is also not an over-riding emphasis in the Qur’an and Hadith, and therefore leaves mankind lost in their sins in the heart, because it does have the proper diagnosis of mankind’s problems and it does not acknowledge original sin and guilt and teaches that everyone has the Fitra and ability to clean themselves up and be acceptable to God. Therefore, it completely misses the mark of the Truth.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        My bad Ken, I’m not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

      • Ken Temple says:

        No, you are smart and ask many good questions and you have proper manners also, unlike Faiz / QB and Stewjo and Mr. heathcliff.

        Thank you for your good manners.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        Thank you for the compliments Ken. Rereading your reply I couldn’t help but notice the statement “It is also not an over-riding emphasis in the Qur’an and Hadith” could you explain
        1: How it is not?

        2: what an “over-riding emphasis” would look like in Islamic texts?

        Apologies if you feel i’m just repeating the question but i think its important to really nail down what you mean to progress the conversation.

      • Ken Temple says:

        There is a verse that seems to agree with the Christian doctrines of original sin and corruption, but Islam denies this because of the implications of that toward the need for the atonement, and so Islam has theologically elevated the doctrines of Fitrah and innocence and that mankind is pure in his / her heart until parents or environment or circumstances drives them into sin and corruption. Islam tends to blame sin on others and circumstances and nurtures a victim mentality in a way that destroys the ability to find a solution to internal sins, guilt, and things like anger, vengeance, etc.

        “And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, . . . ”
        from Surah 16:61

        This is one of the closest verses that actually could be interpreted as the Christian doctrines of original sin and corruption on the inside.

        But, in sharing our faith with Muslims, they deny these things, because the implications point to original sin and guilt and the need for the atonement and forgiveness of Christ, which Muslims cannot accept unless God opens their spiritual eyes and hearts at that point.
        2 Corinthians 4:6
        2 Timothy 2:24-26
        Acts 16:14
        Ezekiel 36:26-27
        John 3:1-21

      • Ken Temple says:

        I sincerely mean that Vaqas, because we can actually have a good conversation and understanding, whereas Faiz / QB and Stewjo and mr.heathcliff, by their bad manners and hatred and name calling, ad hominem methods, etc. – destroy dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

        Paul Williams was right to ban them.

      • Ken Temple says:

        There are other texts, in both Qur’an and Hadith, that seem to indicate original sin.
        See several of my articles on “Original Sin”.
        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/category/original-sin/

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        Ken are you suggesting that the only references to dealing with “internal sins of the heart or soul” are what you perceive to be references to original sin?

        And that the only way for Islamic texts to increase the emphasis is to include more supposed references to original sin rather than any generic reference of dealing with internal sins?

      • Ken Temple says:

        They are intimately connected (They = internal sins, guilt, and original sin and corruption) You cannot separate them from one another. See Matthew 5:21-30 – internal hatred and anger makes you guilty enough to go to hell. Internal sexual lusting makes you guilty enough to go to hell.

        Surah 16:61 suggests this, that all are sinners and guilty.

        But the Fitrah doctrine denies it.

        So Islam contradicts itself and also is a contradiction to the truth of Christianity. Christianity is true full stop. (NT, Trinitarian Theology)

        Denial of the need for atonement (original sin, guilt) and the denial of the crucifixion and death of Jesus Al Masih make the whole thing of Islam false at its core.

        Therefore, Islam is false.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “They are intimately connected (They = internal sins, guilt, and original sin and corruption) You cannot separate them from one another. See Matthew 5:21-30 – internal hatred and anger makes you guilty enough to go to hell. Internal sexual lusting makes you guilty enough to go to hell.”

        When you first mentioned that Islam deals with internal sins a little or sometimes, what specifically were you referring to? Was it what you perceived to be references to original sin or was it something else? For example something generically discussing sins of the heart.

  2. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    I forgot to ask but you mentioned that “Some Muslim scholars say Jihad is the sixth pillar of action .” do you have a source for that?

    • Ken Temple says:

      There are Hadiths that say that there are five pillars of deeds.
      There is no specific text of Hadith that says “Jihad is a sixth” that I know of.

      However,
      Since those days of the beginning disunity, both Sunnis and Shiites have argued for the elevation of Jihad (offensive and defensive), along with the development of the theology of Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb, etc. – this is a debate within the house of Islam.

      But since the days of the disunity and constant Fitna (chaos, confusion, rebellions, mutinies, revolts) – (brutal slaughter of Uthman, Aishya siding against Ali, Battle of the Camel, Khauejites who killed Ali, others that killed Uthman, Shiites, wife of Hassan who poisoned him, Yazid who ambushed and killed Hossein, son of Ali) and all that resulted from that split) – there developed Islamic scholars who seemed to elevate Jihad (fighting in war vs. infidels and vs. Christians – especially Byzantines as their theological basis for fighting back vs. Crusaders, etc. – this has been debated all throughout Islamic history, off and on. They argued for it’s primacy, without actually saying “a sixth” – or maybe they did, I just don’t know the texts that say exactly “a sixth”.

      Sunni theologians, for example, Ibn Asakir (1105-1175) argued for Jihad as central (without calling it “six” specifically, that I know of) justification for aggressive warfare to fight back against the Crusaders. Along with that, prophesies of the defeat of Constantinople (Rum sometimes referred to the larger Roman or Byzantine Empire or the city of Constantinople or the city of Rome itself) were mixed with the end times and Al-Dajjar and Dabiq (a lot of the Hadith texts that Isis used comes from those Hadiths and traditions ) motivations to fight and this became a lot of the basis for the continued Jihads vs. the Byzantines and beyond.

      the Seljuks and Ottomans to continue to fight until they conquered Constantinople in 1453, and then they continued to argue for it and kept on fighting and conquering other areas, Greece, Bulgaria – attempted several times to conquer Vienna (1500s and 1600s) – in Romania, the Muslims were stopped by Vlad the Impaler -who was a real person, but the mythology of Dracula was later written based on his character.

      “Taken as a whole, Ibn ‘Asakir’s biography of Yazid [ the evil and corrupt Ummayid Caliph, son of Muawiyya, who slaughtered Hossein, son of Ali and is the root of the bitterness between Sunnis and Shiites to this day] demonstrates the
      respect and obedience that is owed to temporal rulers (however flawed) as well as their positive contributions to the religious and political life of the Muslim community. In the context of the twelfth century, if the problematic Yazid is owed such obedience and respect, how much more then should the faithful in Damascus support Nur al-Din (the Light of the Religion) in his jihad against the Crusaders as well as the perfidious Shi‘ites?
      Nur al-Din died in 1174, three years after his protégé Saladin brought an end to the
      Shi‘ite Fatimid caliphate in Egypt and restored Egypt to the Sunni Islamic world.20 Saladin
      entered Damascus in October 1175 as the victorious jihad leader and uniter of Egypt and Syria. ” (page 28 –
      Ibn ‘Asakir (1105–1176): Muslim Historian and Advocate of
      Jihad against Christian Crusaders and Shi‘ite Muslims
      James E. Lindsay
      Colorado State University

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “There are Hadiths that say that there are five pillars of deeds.
        There is no specific text of Hadith that says “Jihad is a sixth” that I know of.”

        “They argued for it’s primacy, without actually saying “a sixth” – or maybe they did, I just don’t know the texts that say exactly “a sixth”.

        “Sunni theologians, for example, Ibn Asakir (1105-1175) argued for Jihad as central (without calling it “six” specifically, that I know of)”

        If you cannot substantiate you claim that “6. Some Muslim scholars say Jihad is the sixth pillar of action .” then i would recommend you retract your statement.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        I noticed you haven’t retracted your statement of “6. Some Muslim scholars say Jihad is the sixth pillar of action” why is that?

      • Ken Temple says:

        Ok, but I maintain that some Muslim scholars and historians throughout history have elevated Jihad (harb, Qatal, conquering the world, Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Islam, etc.) so much at various times, that one could argue that they made it a “sixth” pillar of deeds, without actually calling it the official “sixth”. Even so, there may be some who have actually written, “it is a sixth”, though I don’t have the time to go and try to find that.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “Even so, there may be some who have actually written, “it is a sixth”, though I don’t have the time to go and try to find that.”

        You really need to stop making claims you can’t prove or cite Ken. Its a bad habit to have and an even worse look.

      • Ken Temple says:

        I feel that I have adequately adjusted that. One of the problems over the years is that Hadith was not available before internet recently (way too expensive and one would have to travel to another country or some far away city even to buy the books; even then, too expensive back then before internet); and even now, there are lots of various “sunnah” narratives scattered all over the place that are actually not in the Hadith; and there are lots of Islamic writings not readily available or accessible in English. (too expensive and too time consuming)

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “I feel that I have adequately adjusted that.”
        How so? You keep making the same claim without any evidence and with no retraction in sight.

      • Ken Temple says:

        already wrote it. see above. sometimes you come back like a gnat with knit-picky questions.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Ok, but I maintain that some Muslim scholars and historians throughout history have elevated Jihad (harb, Qatal, conquering the world, Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Islam, etc.) so much at various times, that one could argue that they made it a “sixth” pillar of deeds, without actually calling it the official “sixth”.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “Ok, but I maintain that some Muslim scholars and historians throughout history have elevated Jihad (harb, Qatal, conquering the world, Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Islam, etc.) so much at various times, that one could argue that they made it a “sixth” pillar of deeds, without actually calling it the official “sixth”.”

        If that is your retraction then I have to say it doesn’t amount to much since you ended it by making the same claim again!

        “Even so, there may be some who have actually written, “it is a sixth”, though I don’t have the time to go and try to find that.”

        Not to mention its buried in the comments section of the blog post where chances are only a few people will see it. Ideally a retraction should be edited in the initial article or a follow up to ensure it it seen.

        “sometimes you come back like a gnat with knit-picky questions.”

        Well I’m sorry for bothering you Ken. It was not my intention to behave like an annoying insect.

      • Ken Temple says:

        key word was “may” be in that last sentence.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “key word was “may” be in that last sentence.”

        I feel thats still making the claim again without evidence Ken.

      • Ken Temple says:

        ok then, just take off the last sentence.
        There you go again like a gnat . . . (smile)

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “There you go again like a gnat . . . (smile)”

        Sorry again Ken, but its all for the sake of getting to the truth of the matter.

  3. Wilhelm says:

    Which practical solution does christianity propose Ken?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Read the NT from beginning to end and ask God to reveal Himself to you.
      Cry out for mercy
      Realize the depths of your sin within you – Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30; Romans 3:9-23; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9
      Repent and trust in Christ and all that he is
      Mark 1:15
      Read the Bible and pray every day spent time in the Word. John 8:31-32
      Keep reading, thinking, praying
      Find a good evangelical church that truly believes the Bible a conservative gospel oriented church and grow spiritually and learn
      Take up your cross every day and follow Christ – Luke 9:23
      deny your selfish desires
      Obey God

    • Ken Temple says:

      “Finally Free” – overcoming lust & porn

    • Ken Temple says:

      “Uprooting Anger”

    • Ken Temple says:

      Overcoming addictions

    • Ken Temple says:

      John 3:1-21
      You must be born again

      But you cannot
      John 6:44

      Cry out for mercy

    • Ken Temple says:

      Those books have many practical strategies for dealing with sin, but nothing will work unless one is born again first (John 3:1-21) and unless the Spirit of God opens your heart FIRST. (John 3:8; John 3:10- Ezekiel 36:26-27)

    • Wilhelm says:

      “𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭 and trust in Christ and all that he is”

      How is that different from what we do Ken, you repent and trust your god while i (inshAllah) repent and trust mine

      • Ken Temple says:

        It is different because the Allah of Islam is an idol of the mind, the imagination.

        Rejection of the Deity of Christ and rejection of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit, (all that that NT says about who God is ) = Rejection of the NT understanding of God is a false god.

        But nothing wrong with the word, Allah الله – the phonetic sounds, in Arabic and languages that have no other word for “the one true Creator God, in the Biblical context”.

        Arabs who are Christians use Allah for Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT, so I am not saying the word itself is wrong; I am saying the doctrine of who Allah is in Islam is wrong, because it rejects the Deity of Christ, Deity of the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

        One God in three persons.

        Thanks Shaad for commenting.

        Why do you constantly change your name / avatar so much?

      • Wilhelm says:

        Hi Ken, how’s it going…hope you’re fine and healthy

        “It is different because the Allah of Islam is an idol of the mind, the imagination”

        Come on Ken, you know very well this can’t be an answer to the topic

        “Why do you constantly change your name / avatar so much?”

        Everytime I change it i eventually find it boring at some point so i constantly change it again and again lol

      • Ken Temple says:

        Yes it is. Read all my articles on Islam, click on side bar and read all and read all defenses of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the atonement, salvation.

        the denial of essential doctrine by Islam makes the “Allah of Islam” an idol of the mind. But again, the word in Arabic is good for Elohim in OT and Theos in the NT, with proper Trinitarian understanding.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Thanks for explaining the Avatar situation. But why not just go with “Shaad”? Why all the western sounding names?

        I like Shaad better, since I learned the Persian.
        شاد = rejoice, joy
        شادی می کنم – I am joyful, glad, rejoicing, happy

      • Wilhelm says:

        Just a fan of Friedrich Wilhelm Victor August Ernst haha

        Interfaith discussions can be akin to hate speech in my country, that’s why i don’t use my real name anymore…the least suspicion the police get that i’m publicly disagreeing with Christianity online they will lock me up for life despite not saying anything even remotely hateful

      • Ken Temple says:

        Ok, understood.

        Wait a minute ,
        western countries don’t have that.
        At least not that I know of never heard of such a thing of getting in trouble for speaking against Christianity most of the world is the opposite most of the world attacks and makes fun of Christianity with no impunity.

      • Ken Temple says:

        publicly disagreeing with Christianity

        Never heard of such a country.
        Islamic countries do that not western Christian cultures or countries they are secular and they attack Christianity all the time.
        And a communist Marxist country would have no problem with attacking Christianity.

      • Wilhelm says:

        I live in the east, the law applies to criticism of any religion recognized by the state…the last time someone was arrested was a Christian woman targetting hinduism, another one before her was a hindu girl saying ignorant stuff about Ramadan…the society is fragile already, the authorities are ensuring peace through tight control, i’m sure it would be another warzone if nothing was done

  4. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    since you keep saying that Islam doesn’t have an overriding emphasis on dealing with internal sins in its texts, can you state an exact number as to how many texts is an emphasis?

    • Ken Temple says:

      No, there is no way I could spend time on that, given the amount of Hadith and Sunna (even beyond the Hadith records) that exists. It is up to you to come up with that stuff. The burden is on your back, because the NT is already Truth a priori 600 years before Islam. I have already given enough of some verses, if you read my articles here and on “Original Sin in Islam” (see side bar)

      In light of Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30; Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 17:9 – we have already won this argument, presupposition-ally.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        Ken YOU are the one saying that the amount of islamic texts that deal with internal sins is only a “little”, or “sometimes”, or “not an overriding emphasis.” I have been constantly challenging you to show what an “overriding emphasis” would look like in islamic texts and you haven’t done so. The only answer you provide is that your unfamiliar with the large corpus of our texts. So no Ken the burden is firmly on you to prove that Islam deals with internal sins a “only a little.” To clarify i don’t mean what you perceive to be Islamic texts that refer to original sin,(I still think your wrong about that btw) I mean texts that deal with internal sins generically in an Islamic theological sense not a christian one. You don’t even have to provide the texts themselves,(although if its truly a little it shouldn’t be hard to provide them) what i’m asking for to reiterate is what you think would be an EXACT NUMBER(and only a number) of Islamic texts for ME to provide to you in order to prove that Islam deals with internal sins a sufficient amount.

        For example of such a number, would an sufficient amount to prove that islam deals with internal sins adequately be 5 verse? Or 10 chapters? What about if i brought you 50 entire hadith books that contain material that deal exclusively with said subject? How much material would I have to bring you in order to prove that Islam deals with internal sins a good amount? All i’m looking for is a quantifiable amount that I can attempt to provide from an Islamic side and compare to the biblical one.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Thanks for your interaction Vaqas and your continued manners. I was busy with church on Sunday and family, etc. so that is why I took so long to respond.

        You are focused on a number (5 or 10 or whatever) and that was not really my point.

        The point of the whole discussion is not the number, but what Islam teaches about the nature of mankind. Perhaps I did not word my wording very clear or good. Islam teaches that humankind is good by nature (Qur’an, Surah 30:30 – the Fitrah. فطرت
        Islam teaches that mankind is able to choose to be good. The Bible teaches that mankind is NOT able to be good. The emphasis on sin and being a sinner by nature is the main emphasis in Christianity, that your only hope is by faith in Christ (as He is revealed in the NT). The emphasis in the Bible is that external obedience to external sins is not enough. Matthew 5:21-26 – just not murdering someone is not good enough. The hatred and anger in your heart is the problem. (Faiz / QB and Stewjo and mr.heathcliff reveal the corruption in their hearts by their hatred and anger in their hearts, which results in their external bad manners and bad behavior.) It is not enough to not commit literal adultery – Matthew 5:27-30 – internal lust and fantasies all that comes with that is the problem – the modern problems of pornography, ancient problem of prostitution, and fornication (sex before marriage), and adulteries and other sexual sins. The root is the heart of mankind.
        Mark 7:20-23
        Genesis 6:5
        Jeremiah 17:9
        Matthew 12:33-37

        Taken all together, the internal sins of the heart of mankind reveal the root problem of the nature of mankind – that mankind is a sinner by nature and cannot be saved without the atonement of Christ on the cross. The passages in Matthew 5:21-30 reveal the consequences of the internal sins are guilt and condemnation before God and that guilt sends people to hell. People are automatically on their way to hell. That is why John 3:16 says if a person believes “they will not perish”, because the state of perishing (going to hell) is already upon them. See also John 3:18 and 3:36 – “already condemned” and “the wrath of God abides on them”.

        However, Surah 16:61 seems to contradict Surah 30:30 about the Fitrah.

        So, what I meant from the beginning is not so much the number of verses or Hadith narrations that mention internal sins, but about the whole teaching of the nature of those sins and how they are the condition of mankind from conception / birth (Psalm 51:4-5; Psalm 58:3; Romans 512), that the internal sins cause the external sins, and Islam only has solutions for the big external sins (punishment, executions, Sharia Huddud punishments); Islam does not understand or diagnose the problem of the human heart and the need for atonement. Islam does not see mankind as already guilty and condemned. (Romans 3:9-23) All are under the guilt of sin.

        So it is not about an exact number, it is the lack of emphasis, and lack of understanding of the roots of sins, the solution to sin in the heart, the lack of understanding guilt and hell as God’s justice / judgment for being a sinner.

        You don’t have anything like Mark 7:20-23 or Matthew 5:21-30 or 12:33-37 or Genesis 6:5 or Jeremiah 17:9 that properly diagnoses mankind’s root problems. It is more than just a number of internal sins. It is the emphasis, the denial of the nature of mankind, the denial of the need for atonement, the denial of guilt worthy of hell (Matthew 5:21-30) and using the false doctrine of the Fitrah to contradict the Islamic texts that do seem to imply the sinful nature / original sin (for example Surah 16:61)

  5. Vaqas Rehman says:

    In addition from Stew concerning one your previous replies,

    “1.it doesn’t matter if it’s not discussed in all 5 pillars (which isn’t true btw) he’s already conceded it is in one thus defeating his claim. Just because God doesn’t do things like Ken wants it doesn’t make it wrong.

    2.This is hypocritical as this standard isn’t even in his own text. This is not an overriding theme in in the “gospels according to…” nor the Hebrew Bible.

    3. he’s lied as one cannot “clean themselves up” (as he put it) unless God wills so. It is faith in God that gives someone the ability to purify themselves not their own actions. We believe EXACTLY THE SAME as Christians in this regard we just don’t have to worship an idol to do it. Furthermore, since he doesn’t believe in fitra ask him a simple question, who taught him not to wake up and kill his parents one day?”

    • Ken Temple says:

      1. God did not inspire the Qur’an, so therefore Stewjo is wrong about his first point. It is we (Christians) who say to you all Muslims, “just because God does not do things the way YOU want does not make it wrong.” For example the constant demand to have exact wording that Muslims demand, for example, exact phrase “Jesus said, I am God, worship Me.” etc.

      2. I don’t know what he is saying here. It is he who destroyed conversation by his attitude and he admitted his hatred in his heart to me. So it is not hypocritical.

      3. Another problem with both Stewjo and QB is that they don’t understand the definition of a lie. Difference of opinion according to our own religion is not “lying”. It is actually Islam that lies by calling our worship of Jesus an “idol”. I don’t use that kind of argumentation because they don’t think they are lying. They are in bondage to sin their minds and wills. (John 8:34; Ephesians 2:1-3 – you are all in bondage and blind until God choses to open your eyes). It is Islam that has lied by denying the crucifixion and death of Christ. (Surah 4:157) It is Islam that lies by denying the need for the atonement and that mankind is a sinner by nature and has no hope of heaven or salvation without repentance and faith in Christ. But in my argumentation, I don’t go, “you are a liar”!! etc. It is the doctrines of Islam that are lies – untruths – the ones that strike at the main differences between NT Christianity and Islam.

      The way Islam is preached is to just repeat the words of the Shahada (testimony of one God Allah and Muhammad as the final prophet of Allah). But they have to add “and to sincerely mean in their heart” – that is the problem – there is no “sincerity” in sinners’ hearts. All are evil. Matthew 7:11 – It does not mean that all are as evil as they can be (like a Hitler immediately, but the root is there unless God restrains the evil) If the behavior is not corrected, people get worse in their depravity and corruption. But at root, all are guilty and sinners and condemned – Romans 3:9-23. You cannot choose the right way unless God the Holy Spirit reveals and makes you born again to that you can then repent and believe and grow spiritually. (see Ezekiel 36:26-27 and John 3:1-21) You can say Islam teaches the same thing, but it does not, since there is no Holy Spirit and Allah is a lonely monad Al Jabbar all alone in the heavens – a false idol of who God actually is – the Allah of Islam is an idol of the mind, not of stone or a wood idol, but an idol of the mind. Hear me; I am NOT saying the word “Allah” in Arabic is not acceptable. (for Arabic speakers and other cultures who have no concept of the one true creator God; but the Allah of Islam that denies the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the 3 persons in One God, that god is an idol of the mind. Arabic speakers who are born again and true believers use Allah for Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT, no problem.

      As for Stewjo’s example of “who taught him not to wake up and kill his parents one day?” – he obviously misunderstands what Christians and the Bible teaches. If you don’t teach the children the right behaviors, and if you don’t love them as your children properly and don’t teach them right from wrong, they will grow up to hate and be spoiled or criminals, etc. and some even do kill their parents. (book of Proverbs for example) David Wood even admitted this in his testimony. But again, the God of the Bible had mercy on him.
      That is why the NT says, “the law came first through Moses” (to teach that we are sinners and punish external disobedience and teach us to behave in society, etc.) “but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) Jesus came to give spiritual salvation from sin and hell. (Matthew 1:21-23; Luke 19:10; John 10:10)

      Islam rejects NT truth and goes back to the law of Moses (in a twisted Islamic way that has no Spiritual power) and yet also twists and changes it when it wants (all the stories are cleaned up to hide the prophet’s sins – Moses (anger and murder), Abraham (lying, lapse of faith), David (adultery and murder), Noah (drunkenness). Islam got mixed with other things in Muhammad’s mind and the result was a war cult of conquering the world and motivating the Jihadis and Mujahadeen by eternal sex in heaven and booty from conquering. (Surah 9:28-29 – “if you fear poverty, Allah will reward you by getting the revenues from the Jiziye – see Ibn Kathir’s commentary in my article on Jihad and Dhimmi.

      Islam does teach you can clean yourself up meaning because you have the Fitrah, you can choose – just do the 5 pillars of deeds and believe the 6 pillars of faith and chose to do them and you can do them.

      No one is sincere.
      No one seeks for God. (see Romans 3:9-23)

      only true Christians reveal that they do seek for God after God first causes regeneration to happen and then they sincerely seek. (John 3:1-21; Ezekiel 36:26-27)

  6. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple
    No worries on being busy. You shouldn’t have to apologize for having a life Ken. Slightly unrelated to our current discussion but what do you make of these verses?

    …6“Why are you angry,” said the LORD to Cain, “and why has your countenance fallen? 7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; you are its object of desire, but you must master it.” (Genesis 4:6-7)

    • Ken Temple says:

      Genesis 4:6-7

      no problem.

      Read verse 8 also and then on down to verse 15.

      The Bible says, “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15)

      The humans who do repent and believe get saved and proved they are one of the elect.

      Those that don’t “get it” are still locked in their sins – their eyes are blind and their will is enslaved to sinful pride and selfishness. John 8:31-34; 2 Cor. 4:4-6

      Jesus said “he who commits sin is the slave of sin” – your will is locked and in bondage to sin. You have a will, but it is constantly always choosing according to its selfishness, arrogance, pride, lust, jealousies, anger, hatred, etc. – Cain was enslaved to his own sin.

      God uses the analogy of a panther or lion crouching in Cain’s heart. It is there. Cain let it grow into more and more hatred and anger that resulted in murder.

      God says to Cain repent, but he could not; verse 8 demonstrates his heart was enslaved to his anger and hatred and jealousy and it grew until he killed his brother.

      Responsibility does not mean ability to respond positively. Cain’s negative response proved his sinful heart. God held Cain responsible for his own sin, but Cain did not have the ability to chose and verse 8 demonstrates that.

      John 6:44
      Jesus said,
      No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him . . .

  7. stewjo004 says:

    Before beginning if you have something to say you can say it to my face Ken no need to gossip behind my back (good job dealing with that sin btw) Down the line here:

    1.The claim is not on us. You first argued Islam doesn’t deal with internal sin, then you argued a little. To begin, the world does not run on Ken Temple’s feelings but we’ll ask again as YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM. How many references do you need of “internal sin” to say the matter is sufficiently dealt with?

    2.Interesting that you disagree the environment isn’t what alters people (and going against the majority of specialists that “nurture” is much greater influence than “nature”) but okay you have the better understanding I guess.

    3.To show your complete incompetence the Sufi movement did not start because of “internal sin” they wanted Muslims to get back to having a simple life as we had began groing decadent because God fulfilled His promise of us inheriting the Earth. This simple living is called “zuhd” and many early Muslims had engaged in it long before the Sufi movement came around so if you argue that is “proper” then you just conceded Islam teaches internal (again). Please see my post on QB’s blog with your common habit of speaking without knowledge.

    4.It is not “Islamic society” first off, it is the State’s job to enforce external law but it is NOT (and should not) be their job to enforce the internal part of the person (this was the major problem with your Church’s oppressive rule over Europe) You grow the internal through other means like you said reading, thinking, praying, etc. You are not stating anything about the “internal” that has not been discussed at way more length in Islamic thought.

    5.Next as you keep putting my name in your mouth, Paul did not ban me for “bad manners”, he banned me for exposing him being racist to black people. I have already stated this to you so I am now forced to say you must agree with Paul the White supremacist’s views.

    6. The Shia are bigger pagans than you that’s what the issue is. Everybody agrees Yazid was pos but the Shia want people to turn Muhammad’s(saw) family into min gods and nobody agreed.

    7. Regarding your poor analogy. It is bad that the person you worship never stated to worship them period. We can find plenty of explicit mention in the Quran and Hebrew Bible but all of the sudden its mum ‘s the word and forcing preconceived beliefs.

    8.I do not hate you I hate the BS you spew especially when you know you’re wrong.

    9. You are a liar you have been caught lying on multiple occaissions example “Rabbi admits Jesus is go” to alter a person’s intended speech is lying.

    10. That’s interesting that you have now gained the ability to look into people’s hearts. Can you teach me that trick?

    11. What you call the “Holy Spirit” is simply God’s Decree so that didn’t really make any sense but whatever.

    12. You didn’t answer my point. How do people know its wrong to kill their parents? You ironically are the one who misunderstands firtah but like normal just talk. You know what’s great let’s just pull up some Quran verses to end this goofy stuff:

    6:109. They swear on God with their most ‘serious’ vows that if a sign came to them they would believe in it. Tell them: “Signs are ˹only˺ in God’s power.” What will make you understand that even if a sign came to them they still wouldn’t believe?
    6:110. I will change their hearts along with their eyes as a result of them refusing to believe in it the first time around. I’ve abandoned them in their sins and defiance and left them wandering around playing.
    6:111. Even if I sent the angels down to them, the dead spoke to them and I gathered all things right in front of them, they still wouldn’t have believed, unless God wanted it. But most of them act and judge by their emotions.
    6:112. I have made an enemy for every prophet in this way. There were evil ones from both humans and demons. They would inspire each other with propaganda but had your Lord wanted they would not have done that, so leave them and what they make up alone.

    76:29. This is a Reminder, now whoever wants, let them follow the way to their Lord.
    76:30. But you cannot want it unless God wants it because God is All Knowing and the One to pass Judgment.
    76:31. He enters whoever He wishes into His mercy and grace. And as for those who are doing wrong, He has prepared a painful punishment for them…

    81:25. And this is far from the word of Satan the banished.
    81:26. So where are you going?
    81:27. This is nothing but a Reminder to the realms.
    81:28. For whoever among you (who) wishes to walk.
    81:29. But you will do nothing, unless God wants it so, the Lord of the realms…

    We would be closest I believe to what you call “Calvinist” in this regard. Also, you can’t say someone doesn’t “seek for God” when they say if you don’t do something for God or you do something for God along for something else you get no blessing. Please again refer to the theme of you not knowing what you’re talking about.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Thank for visiting and commenting Stewjo.
      I wish you peace in Christ.
      Matthew 11:27-30
      John 14:27
      Romans 5:1

      Lord willing, I may deal with some of those points later.
      busy with life and work now.
      For now, just off the top of my head after reading your comment here:
      You did say you hated me as a person, but thanks for adjusting that.
      You have no power over anger or internal sins. (Matthew 5:21-30; Mark 7:20-23; Genesis 6:5)

      No, all racism is evil and sin. The truth of Scripture slays ethnic hatred in the heart. Colossians 3:10-11; Ephesians 2:11-22; John chapter 4; Revelation 5:9

      No, I did not lie. You and QB / Faiz throw that out a lot but it is not true. You still don’t know the meaning of a lie.

      You are better than Faiz, but you let it out sometimes. The anger within you guys is palpable.
      Matthew 5:21-26

      Other stuff later as God gives time.

  8. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    Sorry if this is again unrelated to our current discussion but since you’ve repeatably accused the Quran of confirming the past scriptures(something which i think is wrong btw) why not read and interact with this blog post on the subject when you have the time?

    https://ponderingislam.com/2020/06/17/does-the-quran-teach-previous-scripture-to-be-corrupt/

  9. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    “It is different because the Allah of Islam is an idol of the mind, the imagination.”

    And you honestly don’t see a problem with that level of logic Ken? Put simply its pretty silly, hypocritical, and circular. Its not unlike the time you said that apostasy was okay for the past scriptures and faiths but was wrong for Islam because Islam is wrong. After all we say the same thing to you, that the trinity of Christianity is an idol of the mind and imagination. I expect you’ll probably respond with a number of scriptures that “prove” Christianity true and Islam false, but that won’t deal with the principle of the matter that I’m addressing.

    • Ken Temple says:

      No, I see no problem at all with my argumentation and logic.

      how is it hypocritical and circular?

      “silly” is your subjective judgment.

      The principle is that the doctrine of the Trinity is already true in the NT and established in church history, 600 before and during the whole 6 centuries until Islam came along and invented a new subjective religion, with lots of contradictions to the previous Scriptures, while at the same time affirming those Scriptures.

      If the NT is true, and it ALREADY is; and 600 years earlier, established, and Christian theology of the Trinity was hammered out based on the NT texts (and OT texts), and it was, then automatically according to logic, Islam is false and the Allah of Islam is a false god.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “If the NT is true, and it ALREADY is; and 600 years earlier, established, and Christian theology of the Trinity was hammered out based on the NT texts (and OT texts), and it was, then automatically according to logic, Islam is false and the Allah of Islam is a false god.”

        “Nope.
        Jesus said that what He taught and did is the fulfillment of the Jewish TaNakh.”

        Its stuff like that that makes me say your argument is circular. Your basically saying that the trinity is true because Christian theology says the trinity is true.

        As for hypocritical the reason I say that is because you wouldn’t accept the answer of “Repent and trust in God” from Islam for what I presume is dealing with internal sins.

        I at least, find all that silly.

        “The principle is that the doctrine of the Trinity is already true in the NT and established in church history, 600 before and during the whole 6 centuries until Islam came along and invented a new subjective religion, with lots of contradictions to the previous Scriptures, while at the same time affirming those Scriptures.”

        I believe both Stew and I in past have given links refuting this claim. I even gave you a new link to a blog post in a comment that deals with the very subject. Just because you ignore the arguments doesn’t mean they go away Ken.

      • Ken Temple says:

        I looked over that article quickly, but want to have time to digest it; overall, I skipped to the argument that says that Surah 2:79 proves your position. No; it does not and that has already been demonstrated. But like I said, I need time to go through it slowly and digest all of it.
        demonstration that Muslims using Surah 2:79 for their apologetic vs. NT is wrong:

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2019/06/03/context-of-surah-279-is-278-and-275/

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken temple

        If you have grievances with the blog post i linked then I recommend you discuss it with the author of the the article when you have the time.

      • Ken Temple says:

        If and when I have time; ok. But for now, my 2 articles stand as refuting the Islamic arguments.

    • stewjo004 says:

      @ Ken

      Except:
      1. You didn’t refute anything you ironically made assumptions
      2. You clearly don’t get the wordplay of the passage
      3. You ignore the obvious mention of the verse’s keyword “written”
      4. You ignore that the disciple/cousin of Muhamamd((saw) says that is the meaning.

  10. stewjo004 says:

    @ Ken

    One can’t help but laugh at the irony when all early Christianity was, was inventing a new religion from Judaism and with parts from Platonism.

    Also, your argument is circular.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Nope.
      Jesus said that what He taught and did is the fulfillment of the Jewish TaNakh.
      Luke 24:25-27
      Luke 24:32
      Luke 24:39
      Luke 24:46-49

      Mark 10:45
      Mark 14:60-64
      Matthew 5:18-30
      “I came to fulfill”

      John 10:18

      • stewjo004 says:

        @ Ken

        1. Still circular
        2. All early Christianity was, was taking elements from Platonism and Judaism; and trying to form a new religion. This is the reason all those sects popped up and is virtually agreed upon by any critical scholar (especially when they start talking about Paul’s writings)

      • Ken Temple says:

        No, because those are the God-breathed words of the historical Jesus, the true Al-Masih. المسیح

      • stewjo004 says:

        @ Ken

        1. Still circular (as you have yet to prove that)
        2. Let’s not be too hasty when talking about what the historical Jesus(as) said (again people of Jerusalem aka the people he preached to didn’t believe like you)
        3. We can see clear Platonic influence on early Christians this isn’t even a debate. The book of John is a clear example and so was Gnosticism.

  11. Ken Temple says:

    No, it is not circular, because:
    Muslims charge the Christians and Jews with altering, changing, corrupting the text of the previous Scriptures. (previous to the Qur’an) Yet the Qur’an teaches that the previous Scriptures are not corrupted or changed. (Surah 10:94; 5:46-48; 5:68) See here

    One of the main verses Muslims use is Surah 2:79

    So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. Surah 2:79

    But they usually fail to note what verses 75 to 78 say, especially verse 75 and 78.

    Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing? 2:75

    And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming. 2:78

    The immediate context of Surah 2:79 is 2:78:

    2:78 shows that this group is:
    a. Uneducated / illiterate
    b. Don’t know the Scriptures
    c. Only going by what they hear (2:75)

    so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.

    This is seems to be what Muhammad did . . . he is uneducated, just hearing things; and that hearing gets garbled and misunderstood and the result was the Qur’an – a mishmash of oral apocryphal stuff with legends with Jewish Midrash and oral interpretations that are away from a tight textual concentration. No wonder he got the message so so wrong.

    You cannot deal with the context of 2:75 and 2:78 and neither did Basam Zawadi.

    2:75 and 2:78 provide the context for 2:79

    Yes, it is a party, a specific group of Jews that did that. (Surah 2:75)
    Not all Jews. We have copies of the OT long before 600 year late Qur’an. So you are wrong.
    2:75 and 2:78 provide the context for 2:79

    Your arguments are burnt to a crisp and nuked and flayed.

    Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.

    They distorted the meaning orally, verbally, but not textually.

    This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues. (ie. they give a wrong oral interpretation of the verse, but it does not affect the written text of the Bible

  12. Ken Temple says:

    “Hasty”

    NT texts were already proven as historical and true for 500-600 years before Islam came on the scene.

    Platonic influence.
    no; none.

    The true Jews are the NT writers (along with Luke, a non-Jew), who interpreted the OT properly and understood Jesus’ person, life and ministry as fulfilling the OT promises.
    Psalm 2:1-12 (Mark 14:60-64)
    Mark 10:45 (Isaiah 52:13-15 & 53:1-12)
    Mark 12:35-37 (fulfillment of Psalm 110)

Comments are closed.