Items tagged islam

Why Statism Won't Save Us from Islam [Topic: A Second Battle of Tours]

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:15:07 GMT

"A citizen of an advanced democracy expects to be able to choose from dozens of breakfast cereals at the supermarket, hundreds of movies at the video store, and millions of porno sites on the Internet, but when it comes to life-or-death decisions about his own body he's happy to have the choice taken out of his hands and given to the government" (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p. 45).

On How Theology Determines Apologetics

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:23:14 GMT

I would like to request James White to use his knowledge to tame Islam - rather than wasting time on other christians like William Lane Craig, who frankly is doing a very good job. Let us focus on the MAIN doctrines like Divinity of Christ, his life and message, which we all accept cutting across different apologetic styles, cutting across denominations etc. So, instead of wasting time on minor issues of differences, it will be better to spend time on those who do not accept Christ at all. Today's challenge is Islam. I am from a place where I am seeing on TV, islamic channels that are talking more on christianity than Islam - they are using completely incorrect understanding of christian doctrines, attacking them and airing them on TV to audiene who do not know anything. If Islam is tamed at the level of best Islamic debaters, the well defined arguments can then be used by ordinary people in their conversations with muslims.

   I appreciate your desire to see Islam refuted. I share your passion, and am regularly involved in study of Islamic belief and apologetics. I am spending the majority of my study time on Islam and its apologists.
   But I cannot allow my desire to see Islam refuted to over-shadow the truth to which I seek to direct Muslims themselves. You have given very clear expression to one of the greatest dangers in apologetics: pragmatism. "We need to respond to Islam! So, let's not worry about the specifics of the faith to which we hope to direct them!" May I suggest that our desire to see Muslims come to know Christ should only heighten our concern for accuracy in our proclamation of biblical truth? Vanilla Christianity is not what Muslims need to hear. Biblical, thorough, accurate, consistent Christianity is the only antidote to Islam.
   W.L. Craig's theology is sub-biblical. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. His Molinism is more of a symptom of a wider theological weakness, one that, I believe, illustrates what happens when philosophy becomes the guiding force in theology. As a result there is a tremendous difference between the apologetic he represents and that which would flow from a consistent theological position. Apologetic methodology must of necessity flow from our theology. What we believe about God, His self-glorifying purpose in Creation, His nature, His power, His will, and His creatures, will determine how we defend His truth. A theocentric theology will result in a theocentric apologetic; an anthropocentric theology always results in an man-centered apologetic.
   Let me give you an example. It is common for WLC and those trained in his system to argue that the "preponderance of the evidence" points to the "greater probability" of the truthfulness of Christianity. Is this kind of argument consistent with the Apostolic proclamation? Did the Apostles claim that "there is very good reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead!"? Or did they proclaim it as a certainty, the very foundation of God's judgment itself (Acts 17:31). Did they say there is more evidence Yahweh exists than there is that He doesn't, or did they identify as foolish any argument raised against the existence of the Creator by the created? I believe a consistent biblical theology will result in the proclamation that outside of the Creator, who has revealed Himself perfectly in Jesus Christ, there is no grounds for human predication at all, and that Christianity is not merely the "best of a number of possibilities," but it is the only possibility. What is more, the WLC system places the sinner, man, in the position of "neutral judge" of these "probabilities," and again, this is something the Apostles did not do. Man is not a neutral judge of the existence of God: he is a rebel creature busily suppressing the knowledge of God. What you believe about these things will tremendously impact your apologetic methodology as a whole, and your response to Islam in particular.
   So while I encourage you to continue working toward the proclamation of God's truth to the Muslim people, I would suggest you consider well just what it is you are saying to them, and how you are doing it. Are you trying to tell the Muslims there is a "better chance" Christianity is true than there is that Islam is true, or are you proclaiming a clear, consistent, compelling, and certainly true revelation in Christ and in His Word that means beyond all doubt that Islam is false? I hope you can see the difference, and why apologetic replies to Islam are not helped by fuzzy theology on the part of Christian apologists. -- James R. White

Within A Generation [Topic: A Second Battle of Tours]

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:52:14 GMT

"More immediately, Europe will be semi-Islamic in its politico-cultural character within a generation. In the fourteenth century, the Black Death wiped out a third of the Continent's population; in the twenty-first, a larger population will disappear -- in effect, by choice. We are living through a rare moment: the self-extinction of the civilization which, for good or ill, shaped the age we live in" (Steyn, America Alone, p. 3).

America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:56:17 GMT

Book Review - America Alone

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:25:08 GMT

Mark Steyn is a brave guy. It takes a certain kind of bravado to write a book criticizing Islam. Just a few days ago I heard an author mention a book he has written dealing with Islam, but suggested that it will only be released posthumously. Other books on the subject have been released anonymously. This is a topic many people are concerned about but which they are afraid to address. Not so, it seems, for Mark Steyn.

Bemoaning the fact that Europe has fallen under the influence of Islam and is almost certainly too far gone to recover, Steyn suggests that if any Western nations are to survive, the future will belong to America standing alone against an Islamic world. The book's central points go something like this (and I have borrowed these from another reviewer who managed to encapsulate them very neatly):

1) In the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam, both the demographics and the will to power favor the Islamists. That a country like Spain, with a birth rate of 1.15 children per adult women, will extinguish itself in a few generations, while immigrants from countries such as Pakistan (birth rate 4.53) will move in to fill the vacuum.
2) That as an aggressive, unassimilated minority edges closer to a majority (as in France, with an estimated 30% Muslim population in the under 20 age group), the character of the democratic institutions will become more closely aligned with Islamic law and culture.

3) That the post-Christian welfare state is largely to blame for the pessimism and failures of will demonstrated by Europe.

4) That America represents the primary exception to this trend, if only by degree, and that only a concerted effort to save our society stands a chance of reversing these trends.

Though agreement with these points is far from unanimous, I found it interesting that of the nearly 300 reviews at Amazon, the majority are positive (with an average rating of 4.5 stars out of a possible 5). This tells me that people are intrigued by this topic and are concerned by what they see as a growing threat to their way of life. Europe is extinguishing itself through a very low birthrate and through extremely high rates of immigration. While native Europeans seem to have little interest in having children, they are inviting millions of Muslims to the continent and these people are maintaining high birthrates. Needless to say, something is going to have to give. It will probably not be long before most of Europe is predominantly Muslim.

As far as I could tell, the book does not flow from the first chapter to last. Rather, like a Coulter book or any number of other "issues" books, the chapters seem somewhat like essays that have been compiled into the book. I will grant that the book is comprised of three sections, each with several chapters, and there is flow from one section to the next, but not so much from chapter-to-chapter. Of course this is more observation than critique.

Steyn, a Canadian who now lives in New Hampshire, has a quick wit and one that appeals a lot to my Canadian sense of humor. And though he makes many jokes, he avoids the vulgarity of Ann Coulter and other commentators. And all the while he keeps the book focused on the dead seriousness of the topic.

Interestingly, Mark Steyn is the obituarist for The Atlantic Monthly. This book reads like an obituary, not for a person, but for a civilization. It is one that continues to exist, but one that seems to Steyn and many others to be hurtling headline to oblivion. While I may not buy into the "doom and gloom" tone of the book, it does seem the Islam is on the rise and that Christianity is on the decline in much of the world. It may be Europe is already destined to fall under the crescent. Steyn is not the first to suggest this and will certainly not be the last. It is wise for us to at least consider the possibility and prepare ourselves accordingly.

Predestination in Islam: A Reformed Critique

Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:04:27 GMT

Over the last couple of blog entries, I have briefly examined the doctrine of Qadar, or Predestination, in Islam. In the first article, I defined the doctrine as taught in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Then, in the second, I presented Dr. Norman Geisler's critique of the doctrine from his Arminian viewpoint, and also offered an analysis of this approach, pointing out the problems I have with it. In this final installment, I will offer a critique of the doctrine of Qadar from a Reformed perspective, and demonstrate that it is not the idea of God having exhaustive sovereignty that is the problem with the Islamic view.

The Problem with Qadar
   As I indicated last time, the idea of God's sovereignty over all creation, even to the final destination of one's eternal soul, is a Biblical concept, and I presented some passages that demonstrate this. To these could be added passages such as Romans 9, Acts 13:48, and Psalm 139, which further show that all things in life are under God's eternal decree, including salvation.
   When someone such as Norman Geisler addresses this subject, given his predisposition to reject any notion of God's sovereignty that would appear to rob man of his free will, he tends to ignore a lot of the Biblical evidence for Predestination, and simply rejects the concept, using many of his well-worn Arminian counter-arguments. As we saw last time, however, many of these arguments fall flat because he is ignoring important passages that the astute Muslim could easily throw back at him, leaving him in a position of having to refute both Islamic and Biblical ideas of the sovereignty of God while trying to defend his Arminian position upon very shaky theological ground. In other words, Dr. Geisler's Arminianism blinds him to the fundamental problem with the Islamic doctrine of Qadar. It is not the fact that God is able to decree a man's path and predetermine his final destiny that is the major theological problem with the Islamic view; rather it is the fact that God appears to do this without any reason or motive for so doing. Why does God choose to send one man to Paradise and another to Hell? According to the Muslim, because He wants to. How can the Muslim be assured that God has not decreed that he will suffer in Hell at the end of his life? Ultimately, he can't. He can hope that any good he has done is as a result of God's intention to give him eternal Bliss, but he cannot know for sure that God might snatch that from him at the end. If there is no rhyme or reason to why a man goes to Heaven, why should there be one for sending a man to Hell?
   There is a concept in Islam of man's "natural inclination," which is called fitrah. At birth, each person's fitrah is pure, free from erroneous ideas, and ready to take in sound teaching. However, soon after birth, this fitrah is corrupted by jinn (spirits that tend to lead a man to sin) and devils. God will intervene and protect and guide those He wishes to lead ultimately to Heaven, and simply leave the rest to be led astray by the jinn and the devils (though he guides the path of these people too, to make sure they don't suddenly decide to resist these temptations and seek out paths of righteousness contrary to His decree for their lives).
   This idea of fitrah is clearly far removed from the Biblical idea of Original Sin. The Bible teaches that as a result of Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden, sin entered the world and caused Adam and his progeny to experience spiritual death (Romans 5:12). As a result of this, every person is born with a natural inclination to sin (Romans 3:9-18). It is this natural inclination towards sin that results in every person being under God's just wrath, and subject to final and eternal punishment in Hell (Romans 1:18-32). So, rather than man being born in a neutral state that God either preserves or corrupts according to what final end He has decreed for that man, Biblically speaking, man is born in a corrupt state, subject to the full wrath of God against his sin, and dependent upon God's mercy in Christ to save him.   To be fair, Geisler does point out that it is man's sinful original state that requires the work of a Saviour to pay the penalty for man's sin, to stand in his place and take the wrath of God upon Himself. However, he fails to see how vital this is to understanding the true nature of the Biblical doctrine of Predestination. In Islam, since all men are born with a pure fitrah, there appears to be no reason why God couldn't tell the jinn and the devils to leave His creation alone and allow all men to follow the way of truth leading to Heaven. Perhaps this is really why Muslims are not encouraged to think too long and hard over the doctrine of Qadar: the picture it paints of God is not at all flattering. Rather than a loving God who sacrifices His Son to allow some of those justly condemned to go free, the God of Islam is a capricious God who takes a group of innocent people and sends some to rot in Hell, and others to follow Him to Paradise.

Biblical Predestination
In Biblical Predestination, all men deserve Hell, and God could show His perfect justice by delivering all of mankind to eternal destruction because of their sin. However, God chooses to show perfect mercy too by delivering some of those condemned, sending His Son to atone for their sin that they might enter Heaven. God is not obliged to do this, but it is an act of His supreme grace. So, those who are condemned to Hell cannot complain that they were not saved: they are getting what their sins deserve, and God has acted justly towards them. Those who receive the gift of eternal life cannot boast in anything they have done because they, like the others, deserved eternal death, but by God's grace, are the recipients of everlasting life. So God is glorified in both the execution of His perfect justice, and in the manifestation of His perfect grace and mercy (Ephesians 2:8-10).
In the first article, I noted how Muslims believe that when God ordains someone's eternal destiny, He will also either protect that man from corruption, or deliver him to the paths of corruption, so that at the end of his life, his final state will be plain from the kind of life he has led. This would be like sentencing an infant to eventually end up in prison when he is thirty, and then making sure that for the first thirty years of his life he lives in the kind of environment, and associates with the kind of people, that will ensure he will be in trouble with the law. By contrast to this, the Bible speaks of God changing a man's heart of stone to a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so that those He has decreed to be saved will, upon conversion, have their hearts that were cold to God and the things of God changed to hearts that desire to be honoring and pleasing to God. In Ephesians 2, Paul describes this transformation when he speaks of the Ephesian believers (including himself among their number) at one time being "dead in trespasses and sins" and living "in the lusts of our flesh" and being "by nature children of wrath." This is the natural state of man: he is a God-hater, following his own desires, deserving of death but not concerned to do anything about it. However, Paul continues:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7)

God acts upon the hearts of those he chooses and enlivens them so that they no longer crave their own desires but long to please God and pursue His righteousness. He doesn't have to persuade them to follow Him: they now possess that desire for themselves. Those who are unconverted remain as God-haters without the desire to please God.

Absolute Sovereignty and the Purposes of God
   In the previous blog I said I would address the question of how God can cause or create good and evil and not be either contradictory in nature, or the author of evil. I cited some passages to demonstrate that the Bible does indeed teach that God's sovereignty extends to all types of action, and so this question is not one that can, or should, be avoided.
   In the first place, I hope we have seen that, unlike the God of the Qur'an and the Hadith, the God of the Bible is perfectly loving, perfectly just, and perfectly merciful. (One point that Geisler and Saleeb make well is the fact that Muslim theologians refuse to say that God can be defined by abstract concepts such as "love" or "hate": God is God, and He is loving, compassionate, wrathful, or whatever He needs to be as He sees fit at that time.) So God's nature is defined by these things. God cannot be malicious, unjust, or callous any more than God could sin. So when God turns the Assyrians against Israel, or puts it in the heart of the Roman and Jewish leaders to crucify Christ, or whatever acts of evil may be done by evil men, while the hearts of those performing the acts are motivated by evil, God is using their wickedness for His good and holy purposes. Is this not precisely what Joseph is saying in Genesis 50:20? The evil intentions of the sinful hearts of his brothers were actually for the glorious and righteous purpose of God in saving many people. From the very beginning, God's motives were pure, and even though sinful acts were necessary for the outworking of His plan, God did not sin, and He did not need to coerce Joseph's brothers into sin. Joseph's brothers willfully, and gladly committed the sin. For this reason, God is not the author of sin, because God's intentions were never evil; there is no sin in God, so God cannot "author" sin. However, the brothers intended evil from the beginning, and committed sin from hearts that were naturally disposed to wickedness.
   One of my favorite passages of Scripture is Romans 8:28: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." I will often belabor the point that Paul does not say that God only works in good things, but He works in all things; this would include the sinful actions of men. But here I would like you to notice the latter part of the verse which speaks to God's motivation for working all things: the good of those who love Him, i.e., His people. If ever a Christian had a reason to feel good about himself, Paul gives it to him here! Every single movement of every atom or particle in the universe has been purposed by God for the benefit of His people. Every birth, every death, every sunrise, every hurricane, every act of benevolence, every act of evil--all with the purpose of bringing about good for the People of God, the Bride of Christ, His Church. Doesn't that make you feel special? :-) And what a contrast to the God of Islam who condemns the innocent to Hell, chooses equally innocent people for Heaven, and rules the universe on a whim.

There is, of course much more that could be said with regard to the doctrine of Qadar. However, I hope this has helped you understand the issues involved, and particularly see the doctrine of God's sovereignty as something that may be used as a springboard for witnessing to your Muslim neighbors and co-workers, especially when understood from a Biblical viewpoint. May the Lord be pleased to use this information in your witnessing so that many more might be brought into the Kingdom. -- James R. White

Witnessing to Muslims--an Important Point to Remember

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:54:06 GMT

   On Thursday's Dividing Line, Dr. White made an important point that I would like to briefly underscore. He mentioned the fact that there are those who might fear witnessing to Muslims because they seem so set in their religion, and often appear to be very militant about their views. Islam is often portrayed as a "hard" religion to evangelize, and there is truth to the fact that since most Muslims are raised in their faith, there are family and societal pressures upon them to remain in the faith. However, we need to remember that before God there is no difference between a Muslim, a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Jehovah's Witness, a Roman Catholic, a Scientologist, an Atheist, or any other non-Christian religious group: they are all sinners in need of a Saviour. The devotees to each of them are trapped within a religious or philosophical system through which they cannot deal with their sinful condition, and they all, therefore, stand condemned before God on that basis.
   It is true that conversion to Christianity is a much more life-threatening prospect for the Muslim than for most other groups, however, especially in the West that is not necessarily the case. We are blessed by God that (at least at the moment) our countries are not governed by Islamic Law, and so the dire consequences Muslim converts might face in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would not necessarily apply. Yes, even in the West Muslims may still try to impose the penalties of Islamic Law against those who commit crimes against Islam (witness the recent ruckus over the cartoons of Muhammad, for example), but these attempts run contrary to Western laws, not in accordance with them.
   Also remember that God is sovereign, and there is no heart too stoney that He cannot turn it to flesh. Salvation belongs to Him, and if He intends to bring the gift of repentance to someone, His work will not fail. He will use whatever means He sees fit (including your evangelistic efforts) to bring His people to a knowledge of Him, and these people come from "every tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9), which includes the Middle East. -- Colin Smith

Obama’s Pastor Admits Concerns over Candidate’s Ties to Islam

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:51:01 GMT

OneNewsNow.com reports that:

The head of a pro-Israel ministry is praising the pastor of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s church for admitting his concerns about the Illinois senator’s association with the Palestinians and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Predestination in Islam: Dr. Norman Geisler's Critique

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:28:19 GMT

   In the previous blog, we looked at what the Qur'an and the Hadith teach with regard to the doctrine of Predestination (Qadar), and we saw that the notion of God's absolute sovereignty is, indeed, supported there. Further, we saw that Islam teaches that God's decree extends to all creation and all that happens, even down to the final destination of each human soul; and God will so direct the paths of each man's life so that he will earn the destiny to which he has been ordained.
   In his book Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, co-written with Abdul Saleeb, Dr. Norman Geisler provides a critique of this teaching (pp. 140-145 of the first edition). Norman Geisler is well-known to listeners of The Dividing Line and those who have followed this website over the years, since it was his criticism of Sproul's book Chosen by God, entitled Chosen But Free, that provoked Dr. White to write The Potter's Freedom. Geisler is solidly Arminian in his theology, and has attacked Reformed doctrine, particularly Calvin's Five Points, in various fora, always with the same misunderstandings and misrepresentations as detailed in Dr. White's book. As with most Arminians, Geisler holds to the idea that God has chosen an undefined group of people that will be saved, but, even though He loves all men equally and desires each one to be saved, He has given each man the ability to choose whether or not he will belong to that number. God provides His Church, His Word, and many evidences of His existence to all creation, and extends the offer of salvation to all of fallen mankind through the shed blood of His final and greatest gift: His Son, who sacrificed Himself on the cross for every person who has and ever will live. However, it is up to each sinful man to accept God's offer in order to be saved. If man does not accept, then he will have consigned himself to eternal punishment, despite God's loving efforts to save him. If he does accept, that man is welcomed into Heaven when he dies.
   After seeing what Islam teaches with regard to Predestination, it comes as no surprise to learn that Dr. Geisler takes issue with the Muslim view. In this blog, I want to take a few moments to see how Geisler goes about critiquing the doctrine of Qadar, and to provide a counter-critique. My counter-critique is by no means in defense of the Muslim position, but to illustrate how Geisler's own theological position has weakened his apologetic response.

Critiquing Qadar: The Geisler Approach
   Dr. Geisler breaks his critique of the doctrine of Qadar into four categories: the logical problem, the moral problem, the theological problem, and the metaphysical problem. The logical problem he sees with Qadar is the fact that the Qur'an depicts God acting in contradictory ways, and describing Him in contradictory terms. "For example, God is 'the One Who leads astray,' as well as 'the One Who guides.' He is 'the One Who brings damage,' as also does Satan" (p. 141). He finds the Muslim response that these contradictions are not part of God's essence but expressions of His will to be "inadequate." As Geisler points out, one's actions flow from one's essence. In other words, a rational person acts in a way that is in character with who he is. That being the case, the God of Islam would be a God of contradictory essence.
   The moral problem, according to Dr. Geisler, is simply that Islam's "extreme determinism" robs man of moral responsibility for his actions. Since God ordains a man's path, and causes him to act in ways that lead to either Heaven or Hell, God is unjust to condemn man for sin over which man has no power. He claims that the attempts by Muslims to deny this only work if they are willing to distort what the Qur'an plainly teaches.
   Geisler's theological problem with Qadar is that, since in Islam God wills both the faith of the believer and the unbelief of the unbeliever, God is thus made to be the author of evil.
   Finally, the metaphysical problem Geisler sees is in the fact that this concept of absolute sovereignty has led to the idea that since God's will is the only will, then God is the only one who actually acts: the rest of creation is passive, waiting for God to move. Further, some have suggested that if no-one but God has the ability to act, then nothing else has true being but God. This has led some mystical Islamic sects to seek the annihilation of one's individuality.

Problems with Geisler's Critique
Logical: I had the mixed blessing of studying Hebrew under a professor who was clearly very adept in Semitic languages, but was also quite virulently anti-Christian. As a result, he was able to give an accurate presentation of the structure and rules of Hebrew grammar, and yet present us with passages to translate that were, at least as far as I could see, chosen because of their "problematic" nature with regard to Christian theology. One such passage was Isaiah 45. Indeed, well I remember verse 7, [r_' arEAbW ~Alv' hf,[o , and how my professor gave a little half smile as he reminded us that the Hebrew literally means "making peace and creating evil." He was quite correct, though. There is no getting around the fact that the Hebrew text is attributing to God the ability to form all that is good and all that is bad, and if we believe the Bible to be God's Word, we have to accept this fact, and not try to avoid it. The first half of the verse also attributes to God the creation of both light and darkness. What the prophet is communicating here is precisely what Dr. Geisler is objecting to: the all-encompassing and all-pervasiveness of God's sovereignty. If God did not bring about both good and bad, if He is only responsible for all that is good, then where did the other come from? Is there a creator other than God? The Bible firmly insists that there is not. I will deal with this passage more fully in the next blog installment, but suffice it to say that the Muslim could easily counter Geisler's logical objection by citing this and other passages in the Old Testament that show God's sovereign control extending to opposite extremes, and asking him to explain the contradictory nature of his God. If God only leads people to do good things, then why did He cause Joseph's brothers to sell Joseph into slavery (Genesis 50:20), and harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 7:3)? Can Dr. Geisler offer a more satisfactory explanation than the Muslim?
Moral: Again, the Muslim could object to this criticism by pointing Dr. Geisler to passages where God claims that sinful men have acted according to His plan (Genesis 50:20; Exodus 7:3; Isaiah 10:5-14; John 19:11; Acts 4:27-28). While Geisler loves to give man the ability to exercise free will outside of God's direct influence, he does so contrary to the testimony of Scripture. Man does not, and indeed cannot act outside of God's purposes. When discussing the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as proof of His divinity, Geisler makes the following statement:

But what are we to say about the prophecies involving miracles? He just happened to make the blind man see? He just happened to be resurrected from the dead? These hardly seem like chance events. If there is a God who is in control of the universe, as we have said, then chance is ruled out... But it is not just a logical improbability that rules out this theory; it is the moral implausibility of an all-powerful and all-knowing God letting things get out of control so that all his plans for prophetic fulfillment are ruined by someone who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. (pp. 249-250)

   I wonder if Dr. Geisler really grasps the level of control that God has to have over the universe to be sure that prophecy is fulfilled precisely as He intends? Imagine a chess game, and you have worked out a strategy for moving one of your pawns to your opponent's end in order that it might become a queen. Your strategy may be first-class, but you cannot guarantee your opponent has not discerned your intentions and has devised a number of measures to hinder and possibly thwart your progress. How can you be sure that you won't be distracted by something and forget the strategy, or perhaps a sudden need for the bathroom might take you away from the game and give your unscrupulous opponent opportunity to rig the game? No, to be infallibly certain that your pawn will reach its intended destination, you must have complete control over all factors, including your opponent's strategy and all of his pieces (not to mention your bladder, too!). R. C. Sproul has well said that there is no such thing as a maverick molecule in the universe. If there was, there would be a chance that a prophecy may fail to come to pass, or a decree of God might not stand. It seems, therefore, that Dr. Geisler does not grasp how important it is for God to have complete control even over the seemingly free-will actions of men, otherwise Moses might not have gone to Egypt, Judas might not have betrayed Jesus, or Pilate may have decided not to have Jesus crucified.
   Theological: The idea that if God ordains evil He becomes the author of evil has already been addressed to some extent. For now, it is enough to re-state that the Bible plainly teaches that God is behind all of the actions of men, whether good or bad. The question is not, therefore, "does the Bible gives God the ability to ordain evil?" but rather, how do you deal with the fact that God does ordain both good and evil actions. Again, I don't believe Geisler has any better response to this than the Muslims.
   Metaphysical: While it may be true that mystical Islamic groups have taken this doctrine to an extreme and formed outrageous belief systems as a result, that is hardly an argument against the doctrine itself. The existence of Gnosticism does not make the doctrine of Christ's deity suspect, nor does the existence of Arianism invalidate the doctrine of Christ's humanity. While this might be a danger of the doctrine, it is by no means a refutation of it.

Having briefly surveyed Dr. Geisler's critique of Qadar and pointed out the failings of his critique, in the final installment of this series I will point out the fundamental flaws in the Islamic understanding of God's sovereignty, and show how only a Reformed view of God can properly address the problems raised, and offer real hope and comfort. -- Colin Smith

Winning Through Intimidation [Topic: A Second Battle of Tours]

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:06:39 GMT

"During the decade since 1989, militant Islamic efforts to silence those who critique Islam or Muslims have had impressive results . . . More impressive than these acts of terror, however, has been the way Islamists have changed the discussion of Islam around the world. In Muslim-majority countries, it has become virtually impossible to comment critically about Islam" (Daniel Pipes, Militant Islam Reaches America, p. 172).

Predestination in Islam: The Doctrine Stated

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:12:46 GMT

One of the major beliefs about God held by the majority of Muslims is that of His absolute sovereignty. This concept is unavoidable for Muslims since it is explicitly taught in the Qur'an. For example:

To Him [Allah] is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When he decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. (2:117)

Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book [Umm al-Kitab, the "book" in which Allah has, supposedly, decreed all things]. (13:39)

And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs. And no female conceives, or lays down (her load), but with His knowledge. Nor is a man long-lived granted length of days, nor is a part cut off from his life, but is in a Decree (ordained). All this is easy to Allah. (35:11)

Whom God does guide,-he is on the right path: whom He rejects from His guidance,-such are the persons who perish. (7:178)

It follows logically from the above that Islam would have a concept of Predestination, and indeed it does. The Arabic term for this is Qadar, which has a semantic range that encompasses ideas of "decree" and "ultimate destiny." This being the case, it should come as no surprise that, just as within Christianity, so in Islam, there are those that embrace the idea of God's absolute control and decree over all elements of the universe, and those who struggle with it and try to find middle ground between what the Qur'an and the Hadith say with regard to God's hand on all events, and human free will. However, the many ayat in the Qur'an, along with many sayings quoted in the Hadith (e.g., Tirmidhi, 4/445, hadith no. 2135; Muslim, 4/2040, hadith no. 2648; Bukhari, Fath al-Baari, 11/477, et al.) seem to affirm the idea that nothing, even the destiny of the soul after life, is outside of God's control.

What the Qur'an and the Hadith Teach about Predestination
In essence, Islam teaches that God is the Creator of all things, and it is He who has ordained all that will happen. When a person is conceived in the womb, God writes the path of that person's life, so it cannot be anything other than what God has decreed. God will then so order the man's life and draw him toward good deeds or evil deeds so that he may be properly judged according to his conduct and, at the end of his life, receive the just reward for the life he has lived: Paradise or Hell. In the course of his life, the man may be tempted by jinn, which are spiritual beings that are supposedly morally neutral, but have a tendency to draw people into sin. However, his ultimate end has been decreed by God, and the balance of his life, whether he has succumbed to sin more than he has striven for good, has also been planned and decreed by God.
This is, of course, a very brief statement of the concept without the nuances and explanations that would normally be provided by the Muslim theologian to try to blunt the harsh edges of what this says. Historically, objections have been raised within the Islamic community along the lines of "if God has so decreed every aspect of my life to the very end, why should I strive? What's the point?" and "if God is able to decree anyone to Paradise, then isn't God unjust if He does not decree all to Paradise?" In response to these objections, the Muslim theologian might suggest that God decrees both the means and the ends, so one cannot help but strive, even though God has decreed the result beforehand. God does not force one to act, because He so affects the desires of men that they will want to act in the way God ordains:

Verily, (the ends) ye strive for are diverse. So he who gives (in charity) and fears (Allah), And (in all sincerity) testifies to the best,- We will indeed make smooth for him the path to Bliss. But he who is a greedy miser and thinks himself self-sufficient, And gives the lie to the best,- We will indeed make smooth for him the path to Misery; Nor will his wealth profit him when he falls headlong (into the Pit). Verily We take upon Ourselves to guide, And verily to Us (belong) the End and the Beginning. (42:4-13)

To the accusation that God is unjust to punish any when He could ordain all men to Paradise, one response is that if mercy belonged to man and God stole it from him, that would be unjust; but mercy belongs to God and He is free to distribute it however He wishes.
Ultimately, though, Muslims are not encouraged to dwell too deeply on the subject of Qadar, since it involves speculation in things that only God knows. Instead of becoming concerned with questions of God's justice, and one's own decreed end, the Muslim should concern himself with obedience and faithulness to God, and let God be concerned with the things He has prescribed.

The Next Installment: Dr. Norman Geisler's Critique of Qadar. -- Colin Smith

The text of the Qur�an: part 2

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:15:03 GMT

This is the second in an occasional series of posts commenting on M. M. Al-Azami�s The history of the Qur�anic text (2003). You can find the first post here.

Professor Al-Azami�s introduction does a good job of setting out his basic parameters. To his credit, he does this forthrightly and obviously, allowing his readers to evaluate later stages of his argument in the light of these presuppositions. His intellectual foundation is that of classical Islam � that, as the introduction to my translation of the Qur�an puts it, the text is the word of God and �remains today completely intact and unaltered in its original Arabic form� (Abulqasim Publishing House, 1997, p. ix).

Al-Azami�s introduction begins by describing an increasingly common Western and secular approach to notions of sacred text. While his focus is only on the Qur�an, the approach he describes is one that has circulated within Christianity since at least the early eighteenth century. This approach denies that the Bible “fell out of heaven� and argues instead that it reveals a great deal of the evolution of religious thought within one or more ancient cultures. It assumes that the final canonical scriptural text betrays a significant number of distinctive � and sometimes competing � sources. It concludes that the final text is a composite of human reflection, rather than a unique and trustworthy record of revelation from another world.

This kind of thinking now dominates the theology of the Christian mainstream. Some convincing voices have been raised in defence of historic orthodoxy � ie, those theological systems based on the assumption that what the Bible says about itself is actually true. Evangelicals in particular continue to defend �the faith once delivered to the saints,� but their arguments in the marketplace of ideas are often drowned out by the cacophony of sophisticated alternatives.

I am heartened by Al-Azami�s response to the same problem within Islam. He is clearly troubled when Muslim scholars undermine core elements of his faith. But he is also dismayed by the assumption of many (secular) scholars that believing Muslims are ineligible to take part in the debate (p. 7). Crucially, he argues, the claims of these Islamic �liberals� �do not exist in a vacuum � they are the brainchild of a particular ideological and political arena, served up in the guise of break-through academic research� (p. 8).

Al-Azami has hit the nail upon the head. There is no such thing as neutral scholarship, no manner of thinking or concluding that is absolutely value-free. All human thought is governed by presuppositions. And, ultimately, every claim for an absolute authority or intellectual foundation is circular. It is clear with the Qur�an: orthodox Muslims believe it to be the word of God because it claims to be the word of God. It is clear with the Bible: orthodox Christians believe it to be the word of God ultimately because it makes that claim about itself. And it is even true of the ‘value-free’ intellectual neutrality of rationalism: why do so many intellectuals believe in the primacy of reason, if not because it is reasonable for them to do so?

So there is much to commend the opening section of this book. But a couple of themes cause me concern. Firstly, I am dismayed by Al-Azami�s presupposition that Christians no longer believe the Bible to be God�s unchanging word. And secondly, I am troubled by his assertion that �any attempts at interpretation [of the Qur�an] from Christians, Jews, atheists, or non-practicing Muslims must be unequivocally discarded� (p. 13). Obviously he does not believe the argument works both ways: that Christians and Jews, in particular, should also �unequivocally discard� his attempts at interpreting and representing their faiths, as he attempts to do throughout his book.

But I will read on nonetheless �

Islamic Paradise

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:14:49 GMT

Note: See other articles in the Islam series: Islamic Ideology and Islamic Infrastructure. Nearly all religions have views of some �happy hunting grounds� that lie beyond physical death. Most have but little correspondence to what Christians understand of heaven. That is particularly true of the “paradise” perceived by [...]

Islam Could Become Europe�s Dominant Religion

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:31:03 GMT

DailyTimes.com reports this morning that, “As the Anglican Communion continues to fight over homosexuality and as church attendance plummets, experts say that Islam is well on its way to becoming the most dominant religion in Europe, according to an article posted on CNSNews.com.”

Take A Good Look, Free World!

Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:18:38 GMT

At Our Sovereign Joy Rev. J. Theodore Helms asks, “Wanna know what the West will look like if the West doesn’t do something about the silent invasion of Islam?”

Michael Jackson Converts to Islam

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:35:34 GMT

According to a recent news report, Michael Jackson has converted to Islam and plans to live in Bahrain on a permanent basis. His conversion was supposedly facilitated by his brother Jermaine, who claims his Islamic faith gave him "inner peace" (Click here: Michael Jackson Confirms Conversion to Islam). Jermaine hopes Islam will do the same for Michael.

The cynic in me says, "good riddance." I must confess that I am always a bit amused when someone of such questionable moral character joins a religion which poses a serious threat to Christianity. The cynic says "let Jackson bring scandal to Islam." I'll bet the JW's are thrilled to be rid of him!

The cynic in me also says, he's probably not much of a threat to foment or bankroll Islamic terrorism since its hard to imagine that the promise of 72 virgins upon martyrdom would hold any special appeal for him.

Surely, it is the Holy Spirit who prompts me to think otherwise. "I should be praying for him." Michael Jackson bears the imago Dei and it was his fallen nature which led him to repeatedly deface himself as pictured above. His new allegiance to Islam is only a further sign of how desperately the man needs God's grace and the mercy and righteousness of Jesus Christ. I should pray for this end and will endeavor to do so.

But at the end of the day, the "cynic in me" says more about my own sanctification than anything else. In my present state of sanctification, I must admit that I feel a certain sense of self-righteous and smug relief that the Muslims are now stuck with him.

Any thoughts?

Comparative Index to Islam

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:30:01 GMT

Here is a helpful link to the Index of Answering Islam.com compiled from the Qur’an, Hadiths, Taurat, Injil and other sources.

Keeping You Apprised of: Islam

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:27:40 GMT

Building upon the article below concerning Franklin Graham meeting with�the president of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir who is a�Muslim, this short piece gives the reader a concise overview of the Christian perspective concerning the world religion of Islam.

Syncretism & the Democrats’ Imam

Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:10:31 GMT

The Democrats' big winter meeting opened with an invocation from an Islamic cleric. The controversy is over the imam's allusion in to the Iraq war (praying against the "oppressors" and "occupiers") and the fact that he was a supporter of Hezbollah. It is wildly inappropriate for an American political party to have an invocation from a cleric of a religion that is fighting a holy war against us.

But there is another issue. The Democrats, among whom presumably were Christians, joined in prayer with a Muslim. Isn't this the syncretism--the mingling of worship of the true God with the false gods--that God judged so harshly in the Old Testament? I realize that we are a multi-cultural, multi-religious society and all that, but isn't it better to have no prayer than a syncretistic prayer? Isn't a "Naked Public Square" better than a public square crowded with idols that we are all supposed to pay homage to?

Debbie Schlussel and the "Democrats' New Imam"

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:33:19 GMT

By Rick Pearcey

Columnist and attorney Debbie Schlussel wonders why Democrats picked Imam Husham Al-Husainy to deliver their Winter Meeting invocation, in which "he called for an end to 'occupation'."

* Readers Know: "Readers of [Schlussel's] site know Imam Al-Husainy, Imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearbornistan, well," she says. "I've written about him and his extremist views extensively."

* Best Buddy: "The guy is best buddies with the Neturei Karta rabbis who spoke at the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran."

Here's Schlussel's website.

_______________

Rick Pearcey is editor and publisher of The Pearcey Report.

Islam

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:50:33 GMT

Greg Koukl and Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason sat down at the mic and dicussed the topic of Islam. Here is a link to the audio (starts at 56:27), but you may need to register to listen. Here is the main page to STR’s audio, but again to access any of the audio, you will need to register, for free.

Alan also gave a lecture for the 2007 Masters Series in Christian Thought titled A Closer Look at Islam: Authoritative Sources on the Teaching of War and Killing which is available for purchase at STR. Here is a brief descriptions:

Is the portrayal of Islam in the media and politics accurate? Examining Islam’s authoritative books in context, Alan leads you through Islam’s beginnings to shed light on the world’s second-largest religion.

Qur'an 101: the Uthmanic Revision

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:24:13 GMT

Sometimes just having a small number of specific vocabularly terms mastered will help you feel more at home in a conversation or discussion. This is especially the case when it comes to Islam. For regular readers of this blog, you have undoubtedly heard me make reference to the "Uthmanic Revision." It is best to give you the direct statement from "official" Muslim sources. Here is the relevant material from the Hadith literature as recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:

   (The Caliph 'Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Qur'an in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Qur'an was revealed in this dialect." So they did it.
   Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: 'Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project." 'Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:
   "Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty...(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba). (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.
   Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had
written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' " (33.23)

   Here we have the traditional Islamic statement of the Uthmanic Revision, that point in time where Uthman, prompted, according to this form of the tradition, by others, and by the death of a number of the Qurra (those who knew the Quran by heart), gathered up the Qur'an from various sources and compiled an "authoritative" version. Note that part of the concern was so that the Muslims would not argue over the text of the Qur'an "as Jews and the Christians did before." This is vitally important (I have often made reference to the same concept in KJV Onlyism: exchanging truth for certainty, an issue I will address in the upcoming series on textual criticism). But note especially the destruction by fire of "all other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies." Given the reference to differing recitations based, clearly, upon different readings in the collections that had already come into existence, we have here evidence of textual variation in the pre-Uthmanic Qur'anic manuscripts. Uthman's action, then, destroys the very means that could have been used to arrive at a far clearer picture of the original compilation and reading of the Qur'an.
   However, in 1972, fragments of what may well be a pre-Uthmanic compilation of the Qur'an were found in Sana'a, Yemen. The picture above comes from the same manuscript find, specifically, from what is today Surah 5, with part of ayah 60, 61, and part of 62.
   So when you hear someone speaking of the "Uthmanic Revision," this is what they are referring to. Of course, there is much discussion concerning just how accurate this tradition itself is, and what truly prompted Uthman's actions, etc. But even from the most conservative Islamic perspective, there is clear evidence of pre-Uthmanic textual variation in the text of the Qur'an.
-- James R. White