Peace and blessings to you all,
Below is a lecture on various aspects of the scriptures. Part one is the lecture, part two is the Q and A session.
Both videos have timestamps, and comments are welcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnzt4ldANn0&t=66s
15 comments:
Hi Waheed. This is an interesting talk. Obviously, this is a very broad subject and it would be impossible to cover every aspect of it in a single talk.
I think it is important to emphasise that ancient texts need to be read and understood in the context of the times that they were written. It is indeed true that these texts have taken on a life of their own and are often interpreted very differently from how they were originally intended. This is as true for Islamic texts as it is for Jewish and Christian texts.
(@2:40) I find it very odd that Muslims say two things which are in obvious contradiction to each other: That God has sent forth messengers to all peoples and that Muhammad is the final prophet. Depending on your definition of "messenger", it can be argued that the first part is evident by finding such messengers amongst all peoples. However, by so doing, and using the same concept of messengers, you would also discover messengers amongst all peoples today. There is a logic to this: if God deemed messengers to be necessary in order to "reveal truth", this is as necessary today as at any other time. If the "truth" of the Jews and the "truth" of the Christians became corrupted over time, then the same can be said about the "truth" of the Muslims. And just as you justify the need for a prophet in the 6th Century to "correct" Christian fallacies, such prophets are needed today.
The contradiction arises in Islam as a result of the long period of revelation and the evolution of Muhammad's understanding of religion over that time. It is clear that Muhammad's view of prophethood and of the Biblical prophets changed markedly over that period. The concept of messengers being sent to all people if based on his earliest understanding of messengers and the concept of himself being the final prophet is from his final years.
(@7:17) I still don't understand Muslims' obsession over the concept of the divinity of Christ. Surely, Muslims believe that all-mighty Allah could appear on Earth in human form (with an appearance suited to the locale), if He chose to, and could deliver His Message to the people, in person, if He chose to, and that angels and prophets would be unnecessary intermediaries, if He chose to make them so. And ... if He did choose to appear Incarnate, He would have control of the entire universe. What's so odd about that?
(@14:00) What does the Qur'an say about the message of the Prophet Jesus? Wouldn't that be the important point of the "relationship between the Bible and the Qur'an"? You cannot claim Jesus as your own prophet without citing his contribution to your religion. There was no need for a prophet to come to 7th Century Arabia merely to dispute Christian theology with non-Christians.
(@19:00) You are making some leaps of logic. Perhaps it is true that none of Jesus's disciples witnessed his crucifixion. That wouldn't imply that "no one was there". It certainly wouldn't imply that Jesus was not crucified and I'm pretty sure that the book you are referencing doesn't imply that. Most of the stories in the Bible were written long after the fact and contain details which are not based on first-hand accounts. However, the accounts of Muhammad, contained in the Qur'an, are not even alleged to have been passed down from witnesses. Why would anyone consider them to be more "factual"?
(@23:10) I wonder if Muhammad ever imagined that all of his revelations would be compiled into a single book? It, too, is full of contradictions when read in its entirety. Just as the books of the New Testament were intended for specific audiences at specific times, so, too, were the verses of the Qur'an.
(@24:30) Can you really say that just because Muhammad appears to fit a description in a (corrupted) book of the Bible, that the book is speaking about him? If anyone wanted to appear as a prophet, wouldn't they find out what the scriptures said about prophets and then act as required. What, precisely, did he do that no other man could do? You have only Muhammad's testimony that the words from his mouth came from God.
(Part 2 @6:45) Why do you smirk at what Paul says? Wouldn't a Muslim say the same thing? If anyone says that an angel spoke to them, that would make them "a prophet" which would contradict Muhammad's claim to be the final prophet.
Conclusion: It's a very thin justification to say that the Qur'an was sent to the non-Christian Arabs to "correct" the misconceptions of Christianity. I, personally, along with billions of other people have rejected Christian theology before ever having seen the Qur'an.
I wish that you would have spent more time talking about what comes from the Bible that Islam actually teaches. You claim Biblical Prophets as your own, yet, you seem to avoid telling their stories from the Bible. You "correct" their stories without telling the stories.
It is interesting to me that Muslims are so focused on rejecting elements of Christian theology, yet, Islam still manages to assimilate the key Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell and of Judgement and Salvation. You are rejecting the back story of Christianity but are accepting fully the outcome.
Hello N-B.
Thank you for your comments. Time constraints prevent me from detailed reply (as well as on your comments on the other article) but I will make a quick comment on your statements below.
(1) You have a point regarding Prophetic legacy and messengers. It is something I have thought about in depth, and the short end answer is is that (a) Prophet Muhammad is called the "seal of prophets", being understood that no other prophets will come after him, and by extension, no new scripture will come forth. (b) This does not negate other figures or ideas from emerging, social and religious reformers and the like. This is also recognized by Islam, and I will gladly say that this reality is found in other communities as well. There is more that I can say about this, as this is an important issue to explore, but it will have to wait until there is more time.
(2) The question of what God can or cannot do is one that philosophers and theologians have grappled with for a millennia. The Qur'an repeatedly talks about the majesty of God, and-basically- that majesty cannot be "confined" to a human being. God is above and beyond that. You are correct in that the lecture should have spent more time on Jesus's role and "contributions". I have done atleast one talk on that, available on youtube, as well as panel discussion on "Benefitting from the Messiah", also can be found on youtube. Perhaps you can access those, as a means to answer that concern.
(3) John Shelby Spong precisely denies the crucifixion. The book cited in the lecture essentially dissects every detail of the account from Mark, showing it to be a literary creation, created to line up with O.T. passages. The Qur'an contains stories, no doubt, however, from an Islamic perspective anyways, there purpose is not simply to convey some historical narrative, but to convey important lessons. The Prophet Muhammad's information is actually very preserved, outside the Qur'an but also within it. In those regards, I don't think a comparison with the Gospels is a fair one. There are misconceptions and false history out there about the Prophet, no doubt, but the general outline as well as the important details on his life and teachings, these are globally known.
(4) The Qur'an has much internal evidence that it was meant to form a whole. The entire structure of the text clearly shows that. There is much literature worth consulting on this subject, under the term Quranic Nazm. Besides this, the Prophet not only memorized the Qur'an, he had it written down whenever revelation came. That is admittedly a longer conversation, but the point being is is that the Qur'an is different from the NT in these regards.
(5) Karen Armstrong- in describing the Prophet- makes the observation that he had experiences much like the Biblical Prophets but was unaware of the parallels. In other words, he had no way of knowing that he fit the cited Biblical descriptions, at least not until the Quranic revelation informed him of that. Even if the Quranic texts are discarded here, from a historical perspective, we don't know of any other figure that fits those descriptions like Prophet Muhammad.
(6)I did not smirk at Paul's statement. It was simply answering a query. Paul's statement was given in the context of the early church's disputes on leadership and proper belief. If a person made some claims today, it would have no affect, whereas in Paul's time, there's a bigger context present, which makes his statement all the more poignant.
Islam teaches that Prophets and teachers came before the Prophet Muhammad. Elements of those teachings survived, and find either validation or explanation in the Qur'an.
That is how Muslims see it anyways.
May God's peace and blessings be upon his messengers, and praise is due to Him, the Caretaker of the Universe.
Hi Waheed. Thank you for again responding to me.
You write: "The question of what God can or cannot do is one that philosophers and theologians have grappled with for [a] millennia."
I think we all need to step back from this question and ask how it is possible that this can even be a question. The source of the problem is that there are numerous inconsistent assumptions about the nature of God. The various prophets have made assertions about the nature of God which are contradictory. Theologians have attempted to come up with an explanation which is consistent with what all of these prophets have said, but that is impossible.
The solution to this "problem" is to acknowledge that "prophets" don't necessarily know anything more about the nature of God than anyone else. Once I accepted that most of what I was taught growing up was wrong, it didn't take me long to figure out what was right.
It is absurd to say on the one hand that Muhammad's mission was to clarify and correct the mistaken assumptions within Judaism and Christianity and then to say that Islamic apologists have had to debate for centuries, and continue to debate, what it was that Muhammad offered as a "solution" to these errors.
As for historical accounts: I don't feel bound to any particular opinion about the historical accuracy of the characters within the Bible nor of the Qur'an. Some say that these accounts are 100% accurate while others assert that these characters are entirely fictional. I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between and I'm happy to discuss the stories from whatever perspective others suggest.
...
My personal view, and the view of most Christians I ask, is that the Gospels are filled with metaphors. I take this view further than many and understand most of the events in that way and I think that it is a mistake to read these stories too literally. It is also clear to me that Muhammad did not understand the Christian metaphors and much of what he claims to be "correcting" is simply the result of having too literal of an understanding.
I'll have to track down what Spong actually says about the crucifixion. I would be curious to know what parts of the history he believes to be accurate. If someone believes that Jesus lived, then he must also believe that his story comes to a conclusion and if Jesus wasn't crucified, then what?
Regardless, the crucifixion, whether it took place or not, is one of the most powerful metaphors in the Gospel. If there is an alternative explanation for how Jesus died, I can consider the implications of adding the crucifixion to the list of events which I don't believe to have taken place: the virgin birth, the various miracles, the resurrection, etc.
There are clear differences between the origins of the Christian texts and that of the Islamic texts. However, I don't agree that one has a clear advantage over the other as far as historical accuracy. However, as I've stated several times before, I don't think that is what matters. What matters is the "why"; "why" are these stories being told and what do they teach?
If a religion depends on believing a story to be a true story, then the religion is based on a fiction.
Waheed, your readers might not understand what I mean about Muhammad's inconsistent message. I'll elaborate on that.
Throughout the first 12 years of Muhammad's mission, he was preaching a "warning" to the Meccans. There are many chapters where he points to the warnings of prior prophets and the destruction that came to those who did not heed the warnings. Chapter 26 is devoted to this topic. He repeatedly describes himself as one of Allah's messengers, just like those who came before. You will note that the destruction will come from Allah himself and that the Muslims are not being told to fight (similar to what you will find in the Bible).
However, this was a problem for Muhammad. 12 years had gone by without any consequences coming to the Meccans. Not only that, the Muslims had been forced to emigrate to Medina.
What went wrong?
Muhammad's response to this problem was to make a very significant change to his theological views. He reasons that Allah has allowed disbelief in the world as a way to "test" believers. Muhammad says: "That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds." (Q 47:4)
This would have come as a shock to his followers. They had joined with Muhammad in peacefully glorifying Allah, but now he was commanding them to risk their lives in battle and was promising them rewards in the Hereafter if they were killed. The people they were being ordered to fight were from their own tribes, perhaps their own families, even their own father or brothers. There are many verses in the Qur'an as Muhammad attempted to persuade his followers that they were obligated to fight.
Verses like this and others are very problematic:
1. The very fact there is a theological shift is STRONG evidence against the notion that the Qur'an is literally the words of Allah. Allah didn't change; Muhammad's notions are what changed.
2. These verses support the VERY LEGITIMATE perspective of non-Muslims that Muslims have been ordered to fight against us, to risk being killed by us, and to expect rewards for doing so. If these words were true when first uttered, then they are still true today.
No, those were not Allah's words. They were not true then and they are not true now. Allah has not ordered armed struggle to "test" you. Your "sacred" book requires a whole lot of editing before it will be acceptable as a foundation for a legitimate religion.
Hello NB
" It is absurd to say on the one hand that Muhammad's mission was to clarify and correct the mistaken assumptions within Judaism and Christianity and then to say that Islamic apologists have had to debate for centuries, and continue to debate, what it was that Muhammad offered as a "solution" to these errors." _(NB quote).
It is my contention that the Qur'an itself, coming to the Prophet, gives the solutions, but that Muslim apologists (as does apologists from other disciplines) will go into directions that are unwarranted in terms of texts.
There are theological implications behind the story of the crucifixion and resurrection. Indeed, Paul himself says in the NT that without those things, his preaching would be "vain". Islam teaches that all of the theological assumptions presented as necessary for the crucifixion and resurrection are essentially invalid. Admittedly the lecture didn't go into those details, but nonetheless I find the clarity present in the Islamic understanding.
" Waheed, your readers might not understand what I mean about Muhammad's inconsistent message. I'll elaborate on that."
It seems like your post there was all over the place. The message of the Prophet was actually consistent throughout, and the response that the Prophet and his followers to the opposition had to do with the circumstances they found themselves in.
The Prophet made migration to Madinah, and there was also a migration of Muslim to Ethiopia, yet, the Makkan opposition made moves against the Islamic message, even after that.
You seem to be saying that the Islamic message was an aggressive one, which is what you have been consistent in saying in general, in particular to the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be on him).
I have repeatedly shown you how that simply isn't the case. I'm unsure what made you even post this comment in this comment section, which was regarding the subjects of the Bible and Qur'an.
Hi Waheed.
You said: "You seem to be saying that the Islamic message was an aggressive one".
No, I am not "seeming" to be saying that. I'm am stating as an indisputable fact that the Qur'anic language is often belligerent and aggressive, in sharp contrast to the Christian texts. If you are going to post about the relationship between the Bible and the Qur'an, you ought to focus on the stark differences between the language of the New Testament and of the Qur'an and of the tone and hence of the message.
Muhammad's theological blunder into this idea that Allah "ordered armed struggle" as "a test" is so at odds with Christianity it surely warrants mention in this context. It is also so dangerous to peace, a primary focus of Christianity, that it cannot be ignored.
Now do you understand how my comments apply to this article?
Unfortunately, many Christians and Muslims get too wrapped up in their fantasies about their own personal salvation. Christians have "proven" to me that Muslims are wrong about salvation and Muslims have "proven" to me that Christians are wrong about salvation. I accept both of their arguments and therefore my focus is on differences that aren't made moot by each religions' theological errors and focus instead on the differences that have an impact on life on Earth.
Hello NB,
I am just getting able to return to the blog, and I try to reply to your comments when they are interesting, with the hope that you will be able to see things from a different perspective.
You speak of the Qur'an as belligerent, yet it is the Bible which says that Moses ordered the killings of entire groups of people, including children and animals, sparing only virgin girls.
In terms of "salvation", in a sense I actually agree with you. The impact of faith upon the believer, as a person and a society, is arguably more important than an argument as to "salvation". It's all about what foundations are there for worldview.
The worldview of Islam has similarities with Christianity and other faiths, as well as differences.
Why the differences, and why do those differences matter? In a sense, that is even what the presentation was all about.
It is worth noting here that Islam asserts that the Prophets are innocent of the assertions often made, such as Moses (peace be upon him) ordering massacres and the like.
What about ...
Why, centuries after Moses is said to have lived, the scribes wrote what they did about him is an entirely other subject. If Islam says other things about him, how is that relevant?
I specifically said "the language of the New Testament". Obviously, the language of the Old Testament is different.
I said that it is "an indisputable fact that the Qur'anic language is often belligerent and aggressive" and you haven't disputed it, so at least that much you seem to be agreeing with.
Hello N-B.
" Why, centuries after Moses is said to have lived, the scribes wrote what they did about him is an entirely other subject. If Islam says other things about him, how is that relevant?
I specifically said "the language of the New Testament". Obviously, the language of the Old Testament is different." (N-B comment)
Out of curiosity, I did an internet search, and found a book called "Violence in the New Testament". A link to an excerpt is below, and likewise you will find some excerpts.
"Name-calling is a common type of violence in the New Testament. In response to the fact that many Jews did not believe that Jesus was the messiah, gospel authors told stories of Jesus attacking them in his teaching. In Matt 23:4-36 Jesus derides Pharisees as the vilest of hypocrites. In John 8:44, Jesus calls “the Jews” the “children of the devil.” While Jews are commonly the target of such name-calling, polytheists are also attacked. For example, Titus 1:12 dismisses the entire population of Crete as “liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons."
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/violence-in-the-new-testament
I certainly dispute that the Quranic language is belligerent, but this cite gives examples that the NT language can be argumentative, to say the least, which proves that the view you have cited ( a commonly held view) is not necessarily true.
Wow, Waheed. You wish to make "name calling" equivalent to rallying an army and destroying entire tribes.
Matthew 23 (cited above) ends with Jesus' solution to the wickedness of the Pharisees: "how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." So different from Q 33:60-61 or Q 47:4
The violence referred to in the article is violence directed AGAINST the Christians. John 8 (cited above) ends with "At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." so different from those same Quranic verses I just cited.
Titus 1 (also cited above) says "They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach", but this follows Paul's direction: "Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."
So different from the Sirah where we see violence and the pursuit of dishonest gain.
We have all encountered "liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons". We are told to "rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith".
THAT, my friend, is a typical expression of Christian "belligerence", and VERY, VERY different from what is said in the Qur'an.
Of course, the New Testament is "argumentative". It's purpose is to argue for a different social order. There are several passages which clearly lay out the failings of our societies, for example, Romans 1:29-31 "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy."
However, the answers in the New Testament are nothing like what was preached by Muhammad and carried out by the early Muslims.
I would say that the "big lie" of Islam is that it continues Christian thought.
HI Unknown Soldier.
I don't understand your post, and in particular I don't understand its relation to the Lecture topic.
Please clarify when you can.
Thanks.
Post a Comment