Silly Islamic Memes (and some silly Christian ones)
Every Friday lunchtime, I do some evangelism on my local high street. Each time I get into passionate (but enjoyable) conversations with Muslims; inevitably after an hour or so, I’m too freezing cold / sunburnt/ emotionally exhausted to carry on the back-and-forth. So I give my new friend my number, suggesting we meet up to do a proper Bible study. But frustratingly, this never happens. Instead, I get a deluge of Islamic memes – the lazy way of having the last word in any discussion. For example:
Exhibit A: Not A Miracle
No, this is not a “big rock” somebody found, proving Islam to be the true religion; it’s a sculpture by underwater artist Jason de Caires Taylor. Clearly this person doesn’t know their contemporary artists. [1]
Exhibit B: Playing Pinocchio with the Bible
Rev 19:10 according to the NIV:
“At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, ‘do not do it! I am a fellow servant..”
Who is having a conversation? Is either Jesus or Joshua talking? No. Jesus is not in this conversation and Joshua has been dead for 1400 years. John is talking to an angel. The angel tells John not to worship him, because he is an angel, not God, and only God should be worshipped.
Serious stuff now.
Exhibit C: Blinded by Numbers
Wow. Is the Bible really so much more violent than the Qur’an? But wait. Let’s consider a) length -most of these hard words come from the OT which is longer than the NT and the Qur’an combined. So it’s not comparing like with like. And b) context. How about the word ‘murder’? Exodus 20:13 contains the word murder! Only it says “You shall notmurder:” it’s one of the 10 Commandments. What about the clearly violent OT directives, for example “anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death?” (Ex 21:17.) Jesus said he came to fulfill the OT law in Matt 5:17, which he does ultimately on the Cross. This is why Christians don’t follow OT law. Instead, we are to take seriously Jesus new, even tougher commandments. ‘Do not commit murder’ becomes ‘don’t even get angry’ (Matt 5:22.)
In the Bible, broadly speaking, the trajectory is from violence to peace. In the Qur’an it’s the other way round. According to Q2:106[2], verses revealed later are considered more binding than earlier ones. Consider this Medinan Sura, which was revealed later, with the earlier Meccan Sura:
“Fight against those who believe not in Allah…among the People of the Scripture” (Q9:29 – Medina)
“To you be your religion, and to me my religion” (Q109:6 – Mecca)
The peaceful verse has been abrogated by the violent one.
Exhibit D: Consistent with history?
What about the Ottoman Empire, spanning the North African coast to the Balkans, territory gained through military conquest? Consider the infamous Janissary Corps (1300-1700 AD) made up of Christian boys kidnapped, converted and forced to kill their families as demonstrations of loyalty ([3]). Or the killing of 1,500,000 Armenian and 250,000 Assyrian Christians while being deported by the Ottomans in 1915; many were crucified and beheaded; women were raped and children enslaved[4]. Isis crucify and behead people, following Q5:33[5]. Wouldn’t these examples of Ottoman barbarism qualify as acts of terrorism today?
And though it pains me, I’ll wrap up with two from my own side:
The headline went: Goliath’s skull found! Er, Goliath’s skull not found. Photoshop has made the skeleton huge and the people tiny. And this one:
Brethren, with this argument we have definitely not checkmated the atheists. Rather, atheists are staging a collective facepalm, groaning “people wrote the Bible, not God.” I’d agree with the first part; just that those people were inspired by the Holy Spirit under God’s supervision. Brevity is bad here.
Seriously though, while this is good fun for a while, I don’t want to engage in an endless meme off. Let’s have a proper discussion with the Scriptures open as well as some history books. I’ll bring the biscuits.
First published on August 4, 2018 by Pfander Team
[1]Thanks to my friend J for finding this out.
[2]Q2:106 “Whatever a verse of revelation do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better One or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?”
[3]Cleveland, Bunton, William, Martin (2013). A History of the Modern Middle East. Westview Press. p. 43
[4]Lang and Walker:7
[5]Q5:33″The recompense of those who…do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands or their feet be cut off from opposite sides”
Why a travel ban isn’t the solution to Radical Islam
Will Donald get his way on the travel ban or won’t he? His executive order against 7 Muslim majority countries has caused uproar and various legal challenges. But would a travel ban be effective against terrorism in the first place? Can only Muslims from these particular countries be considered a threat?
Many liberals are suggesting that Donald has just got the wrong countries; in particular, he should have stuck one of his drawing pins in Saudi Arabia. After all, 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. The other argument is that Wahhabism – the puritanical version of Islam favoured by radicals – is a Saudi product. But this misses the point. Firstly, there’s not much migration from Saudi Arabia to the US. Some women who’d like to drive and go to the shops their own might be keen to live there, but due to the Kingdom’s twitchiness about dissent, we don’t get to hear from them much. But more importantly, Wahhabism is not subject to border controls. All you need is a yearning for Paradise, the commitment to take Islam very seriously and a broadband connection.
We know about this in Europe. All four of the bombers in the 7/7 attacks in London were British. Most of the Paris attackers were either French or Belgian. And where does Islamic State recruit from? From the UK, Ireland, France, Belgium Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland – not including the rest of the world. Radicalisation is a global phenomenon.
So perhaps Donald should go back to his earlier idea, of banning Muslims altogether from entering the US? Mightn’t it, through volume alone, reduce some of the risk? And yet many Americans, including those on the Christian Right, baulk at the idea of banning someone from Land of the Free based on their religion alone. This aversion has its roots in Christianity; when asked who our neighbour is, Jesus replies ‘the Samaritan’ – in other words, someone very foreign to us, with very different beliefs and practices. He also tells us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Practically speaking, a blanket Muslim ban is also hard to implement; think large numbers of fake conversions to Christianity. But more to the point, it still doesn’t address the ideological root cause of radical Islamic terrorism, based on the violent edicts in the Qur’an and the violent life of Muhammad.
Back to the ‘yearning for paradise.’ There is no guarantee of heaven in Islam: but your best chance of obtaining it is by dying as a martyr in jihad. Sura 4:74
Hence, let them fight in Allah’s cause – all who are willing to barter the life of this world for the life to come: for unto him who fights in Allah’s cause, whether he be slain or be victorious, We shall in time grant a mighty reward.
Does this sound like motivation for Maryam, the British woman who went to Syria to fight in 2013? I wonder if she’s still alive. Here’s what she said back then:
“I couldn’t find anyone in the UK who was willing to sacrifice their life in this world for the life in the hereafter… I prayed, and Allah ruled that I came here to marry Abu Bakr…You need to wake up and stop being scared of death… we know that there’s heaven and hell. At the end of the day, Allah’s going to question you. Instead of sitting down and focusing on your families or your study, you just need to wake up because the time is ticking.”
The Bible talks about our longing for an afterlife in Ecclesiastes 3:11: God has “set eternity in the human heart,” which Calvin called our ‘sense of the divine.’ Atheists think this is something we need to repress, whilst reconciling ourselves to our destiny as plant fertiliser. I don’t see why a Muslim with a yearning for paradise would become an atheist. But listen to Jesus’ alternative:
“For God so loved the world that he gave His One and Only Son, so whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” (Jn 3:16)
Jesus, God made flesh, guarantees salvation for everyone who believes in Him. Not that our Muslim friends will accept this at face value; it will take confronting and offending and demolishing sincerely held beliefs. But what an alternative we have to offer! What radical Muslims need most are radical Christians, brave enough to tell them the Good News – wherever they are in the world.
First published on August 4, 2018 by Pat Andrews
Apostasy in Islam and Christianity
A man is Saudi Arabia, locally identified as Ahmad Al-Shamri has been sentenced to death for apostasy. After allegedly uploading videos renouncing Islam and Muhammad in 2014, Mr Al-Shamri was arrested and imprisoned on charges of atheism and blasphemy, and lost his second appeal on 25th April.
Some Saudi Twitter users expressed horror:
Others can’t wait to see the ‘show’
On 29th April in Germany, Farima S, an Afghan refugee and assistant at her local community church, was stabbed to death in front of her children. Although investigations are still ongoing, German police have said there is evidence of a religious motive for the killing; the victim’s sister said it was because she converted to Christianity.
But is death for apostasy Islamic? What do the source texts say?
Apostasy in the Qur’an, Hadith and Sharia law
Sura 4:89 states:
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper (Sahih International)
Some interpret this to be about desertion after various battles with the poytheists; Sura 4:90 gives some context:
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them (Sahih International)
Sura 4:90 appears to soften 4:89 by offering amnesty to those who return with peace terms. So is it in fact traitors, as some Muslims argue, not apostates, who should be killed? Do the reliable hadith collections offer any clarification on this issue?
Al-Bukhari 4:52:260 (and Bukhari 9:84:57)
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.
What is the crime here? Discarding the religion – apostasy. In Bukhari 64:84. Muhammad even advocates death it seems, for nominal Muslims – nor in this hadith, is there any mention of battle:
Narrated ‘Ali:
Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”
Bukhari 89:271:
Narrated Abu Musa:
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle”
What did Abu Musa do that was worthy of death? He reverted to Judaism.
Sahih Muslim 1676:
Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported Allah’s Messenger as saying:
It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community.
In the account of Muhammad’s life by Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume, p.550-1), Abdullah bin Khatal kills a slave then apostatises; later, in fear of his life and clinging to the curtains of the Ka’aba, Muhammad orders him to be killed (Bukhari 5:59:582.)
It seems Muhammad ordered death for apostasy, regardless of treachery in battle. Even if you disregard the evidence to the contrary and maintain that apostasy is the same as treachery, this confirms Islam’s status as a political ideology, not just a religion. Muhammad and his companions were fighting “in Allah’s cause” (Sura 4:89). If the battle is “Allah’s cause,” then someone who ceases to believe in Allah ceases to believe in Allah’s cause too – isn’t that a form of treachery and according to the Qur’an, punishable by death?
Christians on the other hand are not told to fight other people ‘in YHWH’s cause’; rather the Christian battle is against sin, ‘the flesh’ (as in our own human weakness, not other people’s flesh) and the devil.
What does the Shariah say about apostasy? World renowned scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi says:
“The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”
Death for apostasy is well attested in Islamic sources and affirmed by all the main schools of law. But are there any interpretations which favour ‘peaceful’ apostasy?
“It’s equivalent to the death penalty for high treason”
Encouragingly, Morocco just last week retracted the death penalty for apostasy. Morocco’s High Religious Committee stated this was because “the killing of the apostate is meant for the traitor of the group, the one disclosing secrets, […] the equivalent of treason in international law.” Morocco World News
This raises the issue discussed earlier – if apostasy is equivalent to treason (I am using ‘treason’ and ‘treachery’ synonymously here), that makes Islam a political ideology. Does this mean a Muslim could still be executed for treason? What exactly constitutes treason under Islam when the battle according to the Qur’an is “Allah’s cause?” Not only does this ruling ignore the Hadith in favour of the death penalty, but it is based on the teachings of Sufyan al-Thawri, a Sufi sympathiser, whose view is at odds with the main Islamic schools of law.
This is still a welcome development, but how well supported it is according to Islam’s earliest sources is doubtful.
“The Qur’an supports freedom of conscience”
Writers like Kashif N. Choudry make this liberal argument in Huffpost citing Suras like 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) and Sura 18:29 (“The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve”).
However, freedom of conscience and apostasy are two separate issues. It could be argued these Sura allow for some ‘freedom of conscience’ in that it lets people stay as they are – if you are a Christian, you can stay a Christian: no-one should force you to become a Muslim. (Suras 9:5 and 9:29 make this debatable). But this is not apostasy: apostasy is when a Muslim decides to leave Islam. On this, the Qur’an and the traditions are clear. It’s also worth stating that Dr Choudry is from the Ahmaddiya sect of Islam, whose theology is rejected by both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.
“The Bible supports death for apostasy!”
In the Old Testament, YHWH does decree the death penalty in Deuteronomy 13:
“If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer….. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery.” Deut 13: 1-3, 5
In Sura 4:89 the offence is leaving Islam; in Deuteronomy, it is inciting others to worship other gods, so it is not quite equivalent. Nevertheless, here is a capital punishment decreed by YHWH – is it relevant for today?
In the OT, idolatry is the worst of sins; it is condemned even in the first Commandment: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” So it is consistent for the worst offence to merit the worst of punishments, bearing in mind the legal context of the Near East in 1400 BC where capital punishment was normative.
It’s worth noting the two elements of this commandment- God isn’t a ruthless autocrat who arbitrarily demands the death penalty, but the God who redeemed and rescued His people from slavery. His holiness and goodness are the defining elements of His character. Can the same be said of Allah? And how come the redemption narrative is so strikingly absent from the Qur’an?
So is this command applicable today? No, because the Old Covenant has been fulfilled by Jesus death on the Cross and a new covenant brought instead (Matt 5:18). “Christ is the culmination of the law so there may be righteousness for all who believe.” (Romans 10:4) Christians look to Jesus, not Moses, for guidance in these matters. There is no equilvalent ‘fulfilment’ in the Qur’an – all of it is binding on Muslims as Allah’s Eternal Word.
What does the New Testament teach on apostasy?
Jesus never compelled anyone to remain his disciple. Jesus taught that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” His hearers back then (like today) found that hard to take, and as John records, “from this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (John 6:66)
Notice also Jesus’ reaction to the Jews’ rejection of him:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
Jesus does not call for the Jews’ execution (even though by rejecting him they were rejecting YHWH himself); rather he lets them choose. Similarly when Judas betrays him and Peter denies him, Jesus submits to the consequences of their actions. Jesus even restores Peter, who goes on to establish His church.
Jesus does allude to a future reckoning, for example in Luke 19:27:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
But this is at Jesus second coming when He returns to judge the world – a sobering thought and worth pondering, especially if He’s not king over you.
In fact can we find a single example in the New Testament of a Christian being killed for leaving Christianity, or of Christians being commanded to kill apostates? In both cases, the answer is ‘no’.
Practical examples
Can you name a Christian, or post-Christian country where the legal penalty for apostasy is death? Can you name any Christian denomination where the death penalty for apostasy (or idolatry) is supported?
According to the latest Freedom of Thought report, the following Muslim countries all mandate the death penalty for apostasy: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. In Pakistan the death penalty is not for apostasy, but blasphemy.
Conclusion
Muhammad taught and practised the death penalty for apostasy. The Qur’an, the hadith and the tafsirs all support it, as do all mainstream schools of Islamic law. Jesus neither killed nor ordered anyone to be killed for ceasing to follow him while he was on earth. The Old Testament prescribes death for idolaters, but these prescriptions are no longer taught or practised because of Jesus’ fulfilment of the law on the Cross. Jesus warns of the destruction of those who reject his Kingship at his Second Coming; even in Islam, Jesus, not Muhammad, will come back to judge the world. In Christ, YHWH honours man’s freedom to choose; Allah keeps Muslims in Islam through fear. Look at how honestly this is articulated by Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 2013:
“If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today.”
Is Islam so weak that it needs the death penalty to keep its adherents? Ask yourself – would you rather be coerced into belief or persuaded in love?
First published on August 4, 2018 by Other Name
Critique the religion. Love the person.
By Beth Peltola (née Grove)
Today I sat across from my savvy, experienced radio interviewer discussing on air to thousands listening across the country about the intriguing practice of bold public engagement with Islam.
We discussed the tensions between debate and friendship, debate in the context of friendship, debate with those who consider us ‘enemies’. That tightrope relationship between critiquing ideas, false ideas, ideas set up against the one true Biblical God (2 Corinthians 10:5), whilst continuing to love the person behind the ideas (Matthew 5:43-48). Critique the religion. Love the person. It is this motto that keeps us focused, balanced, bold and wise in any engagement with those who find themselves in our land without home or country, specifically those who herald from the lands of Islam.
Europe is in a flux. We live in a society where the results of Atheistic socio-political influences undermine any Christian protective convictions on which our societies, at least Western Europe (by and large, except France) was built upon. This erosion of Christian influence in public life continues, and at times encouraged even by ‘Christians’ engaged in public life. I refer to a symposium in 2015 whereby the speakers (Christian missionaries to Muslims) emphatically stated that we must “aid our Muslim friends to have as much influence in public life as we [Christians] do!”
I understand their motives. Essentially, their ideas are driven by ‘love’. Nonetheless, to encourage, or more accurately, to propel an Islamic ideology into public life, seems to be an action of misappropriated ‘love’ at the cost of ‘truth’? You see, if we love people, including Muslims, should we really transfer the keys to our kingdom to a people with no Christian memory? Ignoring their texts which call on them to wound and kill those who disagree with Islam (Sura 5:33).
Many a refugee, the large majority being Muslim, have fled lands heavily controlled by Islamic doctrine. Some openly admit they have come here for economic and religious freedom. Quite a few even change their religion. Some become Agnostic, or outright Atheists (due to what they previously witnessed in Islam), and others turn to Christianity. The latter is what any Christian, who loves as Christ loves, would invest their best efforts towards. Many refugees from Islamic lands, who respect Christians but are not Christian, tell of their fears of that same Islam becoming an influential dynamic in this land. The threats of freedoms diminished is all too real to them as they see the numbers of influential Muslims gain, or given, access to some of the highest institutions of Britain and similar Western European Countries. They feel vulnerable once again. And so, the Christian who cares for the people in his/her land, and who cares for every Muslim – a quarter of the world’s population who has denied the divinity and relationship of the one true Biblical God – finds themselves torn.
So, how do we rightly respond to the new immigrant in our midst?
We love newcomers with truth? If we love, based on what we know to be true (and that encompasses what is true about Christ and His word, and what is true about Muhammad and the Islamic ‘word’) would we hand this land, built on Christian ideals of freedom and equality of all human beings (note, not equality of all ideas) to an ideology that does not uphold the value of all humankind? Unquestionably we pastor, counsel, aid, and show the love of Jesus in coming alongside displaced people in their time of need. This is Christian hospitality. Not evangelism, note. Evangelism is speaking out the things of God, communicating with your friend (or enemy, if that is how they deem themselves) the good news of the Bible, culminating in the Lord Jesus Christ: God who came to us. Who walked and talked with us, so that we will one day walk with Him for eternity. A message of hope, in contrast to the message which holds a quarter of the world’s population in its grasp, that of Islam.
The Christian has a responsibility to speak against that which ‘sets itself up again the knowledge of the one true God’. The Bible is clear that we are in a battle, a battle for souls, and a battle for the soul of nations (2 Corinthians 10:4; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15).
Ephesians 6:10-20 tells us to put on the ‘belt of truth’ and the ‘sword of the spirit which is the word of God’, and to be ready to share the ‘gospel of peace’. Why? This is because Christianity is good for us. It is good for them. It is good for all. It is good for society. It is a gift. It means peace with God, ultimately leading to peace with all.
We are to confidently engage a broken world, clearly exemplified in the one million Muslims (and a few others) who entered our lands these past couple years from the outflow of the bloody borders of Islam. As predicted so well in Samuel Huntington’s thesis ‘Islam’s bloody borders’. A treatise not so current, yet decidedly relevant in the face of current treatise which mistakenly tell us ‘violence has nothing to do with Islam’[1]. Where Huntington gets it right is evidenced by the warfare Islam has with those outside of its religion, and internally within itself.
Ad nauseam we are told, this warfare is due to ‘cultural’ or ‘political disenfranchisement’ or accomplished by ‘crazies’. This I heard from an influential Christian working in close connection with the European Parliament. ‘Terrorism has no religion’ say our movie stars. The real experts of course. Whether they believe their rhetoric or not, we cannot know, yet all the evidence defies them. Still, the myths and legends continue to be propagated at the expense of truth. Islamic theology, its history, its model (Muhammad) and its texts (the Qur’an and related writings) are ignored. Facts of warfare, poverty, internal conflict, suppression of minorities, abuse of minorities, abuse of women, murder of Christians, enslavement of Yazidis, are ignored or written off as ‘un-Islamic’ by the analysts, the commentators, our leaders. Even Huntington didn’t grasp this aspect when he states “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic… [the] conflict will be cultural”.
The Secular mind always grasps for a reason outside of ideology, outside of faith. To face up to the fact that abuses, violence, and terrorism done by Muslims may be driven by their actual texts is too difficult a concept for the unbelieving mind to grasp. Yet, the facts remain in simple clear edicts laid out in the Qur’an: “O ye who believe! [Muslims] Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty” (Sura 9:123). These hard facts are where the Biblically grounded Christian can have a voice. Stand in the gap and bring ‘love’ together with ‘truth’. Truth of Christ as the antidote to the Islamic system that wreaks havoc on the nations it touches.
Birthed out of the concept that only Muslims are valuable in the sight of the Islamic version of ‘god’. In that view of god, all others must be suppressed, or “killed”, till they pay a high fine or turn to Islam (Sura 5:33; 47:4). Most Muslims do not know these verses, thankfully, and many truly believe that the violence perpetrated in their lands has nothing to do with their religion. Again, the Christian needs to stand in the gap and point out (because they care) that the man who is violent in the name of Islam can find clear support for his actions in the holy texts of Islam.
Whether we like it or not, Islam and its friend Atheism (secularism) are sticking around for a bit longer. Their ideas have consequences[2]. Intriguingly, these two seemingly opposing ideologies form a strange coalition in the West. Both result in a suppression of ideas. We see this in the Atheistic Eastern Block of Communism that ruled Russia and the lands it influenced. Atheism and the state it developed became ‘god’, free thinking was stifled. The same can be seen in societies heavily influenced by Islam. Saudi Arabia is a leading light here. Added to Saudi Arabia, you have Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, and many more, and then there are those groups which shine the torch for Islamic law: ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, and so on, and so on and so on. You get the picture. Many of which are called ‘terrorists’, but are they terrorists? Or are they simply obeying their religious law as they are called to do? Sura 3:151 ‘We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve…” We certainly see the repercussions of this verse in the today’s world.
Our starting point also has ramifications. If we start with the wrong premise, we will not understand how to appropriately respond to the fast-developing situations we now face in our world. Mark Durie[3], a Christian academic who understands Islam’s starting point, reminisces that there “is a great deal Europe could have done to avert this catastrophe. It could… have challenged the Islamic view of history [historical critique] which idolised jihad and its intended outcome, the dhimma [suppression of non-Muslims]. It could have demanded that Islam renounce its love affair with conquest and dominance. It could have encouraged Muslims to follow a path of self-criticism leading to peace.”[4]
Yet, that self-critique would not have ultimately found peace within the deeper theologies of Islam. It means there has to be a better way. Another way that brings real peace, protects the vulnerable and brings families together. It teaches respect and care for all people, including the irreligious or those belonging to a different religion. Note, respect for people does not mean respect for all their ideas. Some ideas are not worthy of respect.
In that vein, it is not the Muslim we are against; we are for them. Christ is for them. He died for them! It is the ideology behind their lives we critique. We preach the solution, the alternative to Sura 9:123. Christ tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31). To love our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Matthew 5:44). It is these principles on which our society is founded. It is why millions (no exaggeration) have flocked to our lands. It is why few refugees flee to Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Indonesia, or India (soon to house the largest Muslim population per country in the world). It is to Britain, Western Europe, or America they run. Why? Societies where there is still a hint, only just, that all human beings matter to God, regardless of creed. He died for them. To save them. We, the Christian, are the conduit through which that message is passed. The conduit raised up by the power of God’s Spirit who now dwells in each of us.
The Christian who cares: lives it. Shares it. Proclaims it.
Critique Islam. Love Muslims.
First published on August 4, 2017 by Pat Andrews
1 Another day, and another terror attack that is ‘nothing to do with Islam’, by Douglas Murray, www.Blogs.spectator.co.uk. ‘Religion of peace’ is not a harmless platitude, by Douglas Murray, www.spectator.co.uk
2 To quote the late philosopher Richard M. Weaver’s excellent book title
4 Paris attacks were not ‘nihilism’ but sacred strategy, by Mark Durie, www.lapidomedia.com
‘Halala’ marriage
The BBC recently published a report on the controversial practice of Halala marriage. Halala marriage is a temporary marriage (which must be consummated) for the purpose of enabling a divorced woman to be reconciled with her husband. Farah, a woman considering Halala marriage, told of women who
“…went to the mosque, there was apparently a designated room where they did this stuff and the imam or whoever offers these services, slept with her…”
The article went on to qualify that this is a practice that the ‘vast majority’ of Muslims are strongly against and was strongly condemned by Khola Hasan of the Islamic Sharia Council.
But is this really the case? What is it that convinces women like Farah that halala is valid? Does it have any basis in the Qur’an or the supporting Scriptures?
Let’s examine the Qur’an, Sura 2:230:
“And if he [the husband] has divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she had married another husband.”
This view is supported by Ibn Abbas (687 CE), Ibn Kathir (1373 CE); it is also found in Bukhari (870 CE) 5260, 5264 and 5265. Here’s Bukhari 5264:
Nafi’ said:
When Ibn ‘Umar was asked about person who had given three divorces, he said, “Would that you gave one or two divorces, for the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered me to do so. If you give three divorces then she cannot be lawful for you until she has married another husband (and is divorced by him).”
It also has support from the Hanafi’s al Mukhtasar (767 CE, pp427-8) and Shafi’I – ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ (820 CE n7.7) schools of fiqh, and from the Deobandi movement. The Deobandis, are an ultra-conservatives Sunni Muslim sect who control around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques, and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars – you can find out about them on this Radio 4 documentary, and The Spectator.
Take a look at the advice the Deobandis give below to a man who allowed a ‘family friend’ to sleep with his wife for halala purposes now wondering if he’s done something wrong:
Source: Islamqa.org
So, if this is the advice from the group that controls 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques, and almost all of the Islamic training in Britain, is the BBC right to assert that halala marriage is something “the vast majority of Muslims are strongly against?” Can the BBC provide any independent research on this subject?
When we’ve discussed this subject publicly, it has provoked an angry reaction from Muslims, who, like the Islamic Sharia Council, denounce it as ‘un-Islamic’. So what are the counter-arguments and are they convincing?
1. The words Halala marriage are not found in the Qur’an
This is a straw man: tawhid isn’t found in the Qur’an either, yet it’s Islam’s central doctrine. The concept (if not the detailed application) of Halala is clearly there in Sura 2:230.
2. A man who marries a woman with the intention of divorcing her for Halala purposes – that is haram
Let’s look at the Sura 2:230 again:
“And if he has divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she had married another husband.” Then, if the other husband divorces her, it is no sin on both of them that they reunite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah.”
The primary issue here is not intention, but lawfulness. In order for her to be reconciled to her husband, she must marry another man and divorce him – that way, there is “no sin on both of them.” The implication is, if they were simply to reconcile after a final divorce, they would be sinning. Why will Allah not allow them simply to be reconciled? How does this cruel act make her ‘permissible’ again and what does this say about Allah’s morality?
3. Muhammad cursed it.
“Ali narrated: – Ismai’l (one of the narrators) said: “And I think it was from the Prophet” – “The one who marries in order to make a woman permissible (for her first husband) is cursed, as is the one on whose behalf it was done.” (Sunan Abu Dawud Vol. 2, Book 11, no 2076)
According to the the Saudi publishers (English Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Riyadh: Darussalem, 2008 p. 517) this hadith is da’if (weak). Other collections, such as Sunan Ibn Majar refer to this same curse as ‘sahih’ (reliable.) So this saying is disputed.
If, for the sake of argument, it is a reliable hadith, how is this to be interpreted? Is a curse the same as a prohibition? Not according to Darul Iftar Birmingham Fatwa 01323:
In other words, the curse makes halala marriage unpalatable, but not invalid.
Even if the majority opinion is that this hadith does amount to a prohibition on halala marriage, at least of the quickie convenience kind – it still doesn’t deal with the issue of lawfulness as prescribed by Allah in Sura 2:230. The fact remains: if, after a triple talaq, a woman wants to be reconciled to her husband, she has no choice but to consummate a marriage with another man first. Again: why does Allah not let them simply be reconciled?
4. It’s a kind of ‘triple lock’ protection for marriage
Muslims argue that what Sura 2:230 actually teaches is that the triple talaq divorce is so serious there’s no going back. But if that were the case, why does the Sura not say so and leave it at that? If this is true,why is the possibility of reconciliation mentioned at all?
Rather, Sura 2:230 is a warning to anyone tempted to divorce their wife by triple talaq, because if you do, Allah says your wife has to have sex with another man before you can get back together. Instead of appealing to the man’s conscience by reminding him of the sanctity of marriage, Allah issues a cruel and degrading threat dressed up as a ‘safeguard.’ And where are the woman’s rights in all of this? Can she refuse her husband if he wants to be reconciled this way? Does she at least have the same rights over her husband? Not according to the Qur’an.
What does the New Testament teach?
Let’s contrast this with the Jesus’ teaching on marriage. Matthew 19:4
“A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Biblical marriage is between one man and one woman for life; God himself has joined them together. In Christianity marriage is a sacred institution that demands to be taken seriously. In the Qur’an a man can marry up to four women at once (Sura 4:3).
On the subject of divorce, rather than issue threats, Jesus’ appeals to the man’s conscience:
“Anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” (Matt 19:5)
Divorce in Christianity is a concession, Jesus says, “because your hearts were hard” (Mt 19:8). But it is not prohibited. Paul writes:
“A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Cor 7:11)
This is a warning to a Christian husband and wife of the sanctity of marriage before they decide to separate – which both the husband and wife can instigate on equal terms. Paul also writes
“if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” (1 Cor 7:15)
There is no suggestion in the Bible that a woman is forced to stay in an abusive marriage as some Muslims argue; and no where does God say a woman has to have sex with another man to be reconciled to her husband – this would entirely contradict the teaching of the New Testament.
Conclusion
If we take Muhammad’s curse as prohibitive, then some could argue the practice of paid-for convenience halala is un-Islamic. However the curse still does not negate the clear statement in Sura 2:230, that a woman is not lawful to her first husband unless she consummates a marriage with another man. This is strongly supported by the reliable hadith compilers such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, and both Hanafi and Shafi’I schools of Law. Halala marriage in this sense is perfectly consistent with the teaching of the Qur’an and the Islamic Traditions.
The issue isn’t the edict itself, but how to apply it. Most Muslims are understandably horrified by the idea of a reconciliation sex service. But where do you draw the line? According to the Deobandis – who control 45 per cent of the UK’s mosques – sex with a ‘family friend’ to get a husband and wife back together is OK.
In the Bible the believing wife must remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband; in the Quran the woman must have sex with another man in order to be reconciled to him. The Bible emphasizes the sanctity of marriage; the Qur’an emphasises the finality of divorce. In the Bible, divorce is a concession which can be accessed by both husband and wife; in the Qur’an, only the husband can issue a triple talaq. The concept of whether a woman is ‘permitted’ underpins marriage in the Qur’an; the concept of a holy union between a man and a woman underpins marriage in the Bible. In the Qur’an rules for marriage were taught by a polygamist who took some of his wives through conquest; in the Bible, rules for marriage were taught by a celibate man who only ever treated women with dignity and respect.
Whose teaching would you rather follow?
First published on April 28, 2017 by Other Name
Understanding the Westminster Attack
At two-forty on 22nd March 2017, a 52 year old British-born man, Khalid Masood drove at high speed over Westminster Bridge, killing three and injuring up to fifty, before breaking outside the gates of the Parliament and forcing his way into the grounds. He repeatedly stabbed one of the two duty policemen who challenged him before running towards the main entrance to the Parliamentary buildings themselves and was then killed by one of the armed members of Defence Secretary Michael Fallon’s bodyguard detail.
There is wide-ranging coverage of this incident in the British and non-British media covering Masood’s story of radicalisation, nature of his victims, security on the Parliamentary estate as well as mounting criticism of Prevent. Many of these issues have been dealt with generically in previous briefs, so this brief will focus briefly on two separate note-worthy items which are both important, but have not been picked up substantially in the media. The first is the language being used by politicians to describe the attackers motivations and the second is Masood’s choice of weapons.
In many ways, the responses by British politicians thus far has been somewhat familiar: there have been defiant cries and expressions of unity versus division. But there are also number of ways in which the response has been subtly different as well. When Prime Minister Theresa May spoke outside her Downing Street office shortly after 9pm on the evening of the attacks, there was a lack of language which sought to separate Islam from Islamic terrorism. She made no speech citing Islam as a religion of peace, as had been the pattern in the past, and she used the word ‘Islamist’, which, whilst still dislocating the religion from the jihadi ideology was still a clearer linguistic link between the acts of violence and the faith. The same evening, Acting Deputy Assistant Police Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, Mark Rowley cited “international terrorism” as the motivation and went on to clarify that as “Islamist Terrorism”. This was unusual both in relation to the fact that the clarification was issued and also in the relatively early context of the investigation. Yet even this language moved on from ADAC Rowley on the evening of 22nd March, to the morning of 23rd March when the British Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, in an interview on the BBC’s flagship current affairs show, the Today programme, stated that the working assumption was that the attack was “linked to Islamic terrorism”. In her powerful statement to the House of Commons at 10:30 on the morning after the attack, the Prime Minister reverted back to the use of the term ‘Islamist’, but nevertheless, the term was being used far more than ‘terrorist’ or ‘extremist’, which had been the style previously.
In many ways, the language shift can be seen as a signal of a ‘step-on’ that politicians now appear to be willing to make and the statements brought the position of the government publically more into line with the language of the updated ‘Prevent‘ strategy. That strategy was published in 2015 and it placed a far greater emphasis on fighting the ideology behind ‘jihadism‘ than had previous been the case under the past Coalition government, and the government of New Labour before that. This shifting language also spoke of an obvious frustration with the continuation of radicalisation and a growing desire to engage with the issues more robustly. Nothing exemplified that more than when the former government Minister Liam Byrne (Labour), openly spoke of his concerns about growing radicalisation in his Birmingham constituency on a BBC television programme on the 23rd March.
The second item not covered by the media was the fact that Masood was carrying two knives with him when he was shot. One knife looked like a ‘commando‘ knife: this appears to have been the weapon that he used to stab PC Keith Palmer, the police officer who confronted him. The other was, what looked like, a meat cleaver: a large, heavy, wide-bladed knife.
Why did he carry both? (Questions about a lack of guns have been reasonably assessed as being down to heavy intelligence penetration of the illegal arms trade in the UK, for any attempt by Masood to buy firearms would have raised flags concerning his intentions).
My assessment of his carrying of two knives, given their difference, is that he Masood might have been seeking to behead a politician: a hugely symbolic act in salafi-jihadi ideology if that was indeed his intention.
There are two potential reasons why Masood might have been seeking to take the head of a politician. The first would be that it was an expression of ayat such as Q8:12 ‘Remember when the Lord inspired to the Angels, ”I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike them upon the neck and strike them from every fingertip”. [Sahih International version]
It is well documented that the attack on Lee Rigby beheaded the drummer so it is a tactic that has been deployed before in the UK.
Taking the head of a politician would not only have carried out the spirit of ayat such as Q8.12, but it would also have been a highly significant symbolic strike against the ‘mother of all Parliaments’ and, as such, would have been a strike against democracy as a whole. It was known that Britain was to be the next subject of attack following Nice in France: al-Adnani, former propaganda chief for IS before he was killed, had specified as much in his broadcasts. So there had clearly long been an intention from IS to carry out a significant attack in the UK: ‘significant’, but would be an enormous symbolic gesture.
The second possible reason to choose a beheading, (which might not need to have been considered separate from the first possible cause) was that it represents both a general insult in Arabic culture and a specific reference to the Dhimmi status: the second class citizenship of non-Muslims under Muslim rule historically. Dr. Mark Durie’s excellent book The Third Choice describes that part of the ceremony of the paying of the Dhimma tax, the jizya, was that the payee was struck on the neck as both an insult and a signal. The message was that the Muslim tax collector had the right to take the head of the Dhimmi, but, in his mercy, he was going to allow the Dhimmi to pay the tax and keep his life for another year.
Of course, neither of these symbolic Islamic constructs might have been in Masood’s head when he planned and executed his attack: the increasing information being released about his life reveals a man who had used knives on a fairly regular basis in anger and as a weapon in robbery. But the fact that the ‘IS soldier’ had two very different knives with him in an attack which was planned at least a week before (which is when Masood hired the car which became his initial kill vehicle) demonstrates that the knives that he had upon him were unlikely to have been random choices quickly picked up to use in a spur of the moment decision.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The London attack launched on 22nd March 2017 is unlikely to prove a ‘watershed moment’ on its own, but the shift in the language from politicians can be seen as a step further on in connecting Islam to jihadism.
It is a shame that the potential significance of the knives has not been picked up in the media for if it was, it would increase pressure to strengthen the ideological campaign against IS or al-Qa’ida through PREVENT and would perhaps encourage Muslims to confront the teachings of their own scriptures more.
If any media contacts are available to the readers of this article, it would be worth alerting them to the symbolic significance of what Masood appears to have been trying to do which goes beyond the simple ‘strike at democracy’ which is the focus of media attention.
First published on March 29, 2017 by Pfander Admin
Islamophobia vs. Islamocriticism
Canada: land of maple syrup and floppy-haired young Prime Ministers, bastion of free speech and liberal values, and epicentre of the latest storm over the term ‘Islamophobia.’
In December 2016 Canadian Liberal MP Iqra Khalid proposed a motion (M-103) that
“the government should recognise the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear…[and] condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
This is a noble aim, especially after the shooting at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec on 29th January this year. But Canada’s conservative politicians objected on the basis of the lack of a proper definition of ‘Islamophobia’ – and they have a point.
How do you define ‘Islamophobia’? Let’s break the word down. What does ‘Islam’ mean? Google says it means ‘the religion of the Muslims.’ What does ‘phobia’ mean? Google says ‘phobia’ means ‘an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.’ Yet Google says ‘Islamophobia’ is the ‘dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.’ So how did ‘extreme, irrational fear or aversion’ get downgraded to simply ‘dislike’? Is disliking Islam enough to brand you an ‘Islamophobe’? And does disliking Islam mean by definition you dislike Muslims?
The term ‘Islamophobia’ wasn’t invented by an Islamic lobby group. Rather it came to public attention in 1997 via the Runnymede Trust in a report entitled Islamophobia – a Challenge for Us All. The report justified the introduction of the term stating that
“Anti-Muslim prejudice has grown so considerably and so rapidly in recent years that a new item in the vocabulary is needed.”
Twenty years on, it’s done more than highlight prejudice – it has been adopted wholesale by the mainstream, stifling debate and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam to great effect. Even Trevor Phillips, former head of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission – and commissioner of the Runnymede Trust’s original report – has recognised this problem:
‘Non-Muslims who live and work in areas with a large Muslim presence have been uneasily aware of the emerging differences for a long time, but many are too worried about being tagged as Islamophobes to raise the debate.’
To clarify: at Pfander we condemn all forms of anti-Muslim discrimination and hate crime. We were horrified by the shooting in Quebec. We support Muslims’ human rights, including their freedom of belief. We do what we do out of love for Muslims, because we want them to know eternal life with God through Jesus. We love the people but oppose the ideology. But still, the term ‘Islamophobia’ is chucked at us all the time, by liberal Westerners as well as by Muslims. This taint has kept us from universities and other public forums, and hindered many others from supporting our work out of fear. Neither does the word ‘Islamophobia’ help how the religion is perceived. It makes it look weak and in need of special protection. Certainly the debaters at Speaker’s Corner would certainly never see Islam in that way. Isn’t it time ‘Islamophobia’ got a replacement?
What about Iqra Khalid and her legitimate desire for Muslims to live without hate or fear? Read her statement with ‘Islamophobia’ taken out:
“the government should recognise the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear…[and] condemn all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
Doesn’t the phrase ‘religious discrimination’ already cover discrimination towards Muslims? Former Liberal cabinet member and human rights activist Irwin Cotler suggested the phrase ‘anti-Muslim bigotry‘ instead. But in that case why not spell out anti-Semitism, anti Hindu and Christian bigotry as well? Anti-Muslim hate crime in Canada has doubled within the last three years, but it still remains second to anti-Semitic hate crime.
So how do we address the problem of a term that elegantly differentiates between the ideology and the people? To borrow a phrase, ‘a new item in the vocabulary is needed.’ (Spoiler alert: it’s in the title.)
Introducing – ‘Islamocriticism.’ Actually, I didn’t make it up – well done Bart van Audenhove who has already registered a YouTube channel with that name. (I wish I could claim it as my own, but not for the first time, Google has been good for my humility.) ‘Islamocriticism’ is both a neologism (neologisms are trendy) and, unlike ‘Islamophobia’, etymologically accurate. You can’t ‘critique’ things you can’t help, like your skin colour or your ethnicity. Ideologies on the other hand, can and should be subject to critique. This would solve another problem with ‘Islamophobia’; that it is used synonymously (and wrongly) with ‘racism’.
I hope ‘Islamocriticism’ takes off. Bart, I suggest you copyright it now: Trevor Phillips would be on his own private island if he’d done the same with ‘Islamophobia’. But if not ‘Islamocriticism’, we need something like it. Because terminology matters, and a proper discussion on what Islam actually teaches is long overdue. Just this week Ontario passed its own anti-Islamophobia motion. Let’s hope Canada doesn’t inadvertently shut down the debate by failing to clarify terms.
First published on March 2, 2017 by Pfander Team