Name Withheld

Thank you for the clarification, Greg:

   I am reading a very interesting thesis about how the Gospel of Mark was very much an anti-imperial [=Rome] document. The author shows, however that Mark did not only "tear down" Roman imperial constructs, he actually proposed others in their place. His bottom line is that Rome had hijacked terms like 'savior', 'son of god', 'lord', 'the good news' 'the way' and so forth, and now it was up to the Gospel writers to show where the hijacking had taken place, and rightfully assigning those to  the actual and real Saviour, Son of God, Lord, with the Good News who is The Way. This was nothing less than subversive to the empire.

  In a fashion, anyone reading the Qur'an must realize that many concepts have been hijacked from Christianity and not just to take them at face value. Terms like prayer, sacrifice, worship, the messiah, faith, revelation are all found in the Qur'an, but they have been emptied of their origin Christian meanings and infused with Islamic ones. Just because there are parallel words, has nothing to do with parallel meanings. For instance, to see the word Messiah in the Qur'an does not say anything about the Biblical concept of Messiah. The Biblical definition will and must rule the day, and will determine if the Qur'anic definition contains any truth at all.  Parallel to what the Gospel writers did, we must identify this hijacking process for what it is--and that takes dedicated study--e.g. to understand just what is meant by the Qur'anic messiah---and recapture these concepts back to their rightful possessor, namely Jesus who is Lord of all and who unlike the Qur'anic messiah is truly The Prophet, The Priest, and The King.  [oops, I think a sermon just started]

Glad to see that your theology is being sharpened, and pray it will continue to be.

Shalom.

Thank you John for your discussion opener.

    A couple of observations:

a. The German scholar Nagel Tilman said:

"I deliberately refrain from rashly pointing out parallels or similarities between Islam and Christianity, because this tends to be misleading. For what do we learn from an analogy which is sometimes made-of Christ as the "logos" and the Koran as God's word? Statements of that kind only feign similarities between Islam and Christianity; the naive European reader is led to believe that Islam has a logos theory comparable to that of Christianity. That is utterly wrong!" in his  The History of Islamic Theology From Muhammad to the Present. ( Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2000), p. xi.

--his bottom line: read Islam on its own terms

b. In his blog of Wednesday, May 29, 2013, Mark Durie  points out that relativism is a huge problem in reading Islam correctly. http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2013/05/wilders-in-australia-and-islamic.html   Given the CRCNA's frequent posture of trying to please all people all the time, it is not difficult to see that embracing a culture of relativism could blind one to Islam's true nature. For instance how many times have I heard "there is no compulsion in religion" from wooley-headed leaders who fail to realize that this was a Meccan Surah which has been abrogated by "kill the infidels."

c. I am grateful to the advance of the Gospel as outlined below by Wendy and Nancy.

d.  To understand Islam at its root, it must be understood that it has two triads that intertwine and are non-negotiable, Pew Forum notwithstanding. The first triad is the Qur'an/Sunnah--examples drawn from Muslim traditions/Sira--the life of Muhammad.  Like it or not this is the center of the Islamic solar system and it is non-negotiable. Sure many token Muslims orbit at a distance to Pluto from these, but invariably when push comes to shove they will be drawn to the center. That is why democratic countries need very firm laws to prevent creeping shariah. The second triad is composed of iman (faith)/islam (submisison) and ihsan (virtue.).  Again, to fill the pillars of these three, essentially one must say, "I love what Muhammad brought." However living a life of WWMD "What would Muhammad do?" one must be well aware of his legacy from the Sira, or from a book such as "The Life of Muhammad" by Ibn Ishaq--translated by Guillaume. Then you will see why non-Muslim governments might wake up and smell the roses.

Shalom

Can anyone argue with the statement "God is doing a new thing?" It seems to me like it has echoes of the hyper-spiritual French prophets who castigated any of their opponents with the phrase, "If you criticize this, you will be quenching the Spirit." Funny how that has a way of disarming any kind of critical analysis.

   Sad that the voices of Bengali Christians who have seen the Insider experimenters from the West swarm their country with all their new techniques are not represented here. In their film, Half-Devil Half-Child they chide the Westerners for treating them like lab rats. The insider featured in that film tells in his own words that he is lost out in the woods. 

May we not be too quick to declare that God is doing a new thing, when in fact experimenters are doing so.                                  Shalom
W

 

 

Greg:  As much as I appreciate your willingness to understand Islam from within and have immersed yourself into Yusuf Ali's translation, I fear you may be inadvertently Christianizing Islam.  Yusuf Ali's own notes to his translation debunk the idea that Jesus was the Word of God. Ali strongly stresses that Jesus was a word from Allah, and Ali suggests that this has nothing to do with the Logos doctrine as could easily be read from your comments. 

From his book:

39. While he was  standing in prayer in the chamber,   the angels called unto her:
"Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from
Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a Prophet,  --of the (goodly! company
of the righteous."
301. Notice: "a word from Allah", not "the word of Allah", the epithet that
mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in Sura 3:59 below, Jesus
was created by a miracle, by Allah's word "Be", and he was.

Secondly: the Arabic speaking "....the spirit of the Holy is never called the Holy Spirit in Islam. This is the trick of the translators; they make the spirit of the Holy out to be the Holy Spirit. In Islam the spirit of the Holy is not holy, but he is a property of the Holy, a slave of Allah (Abd Allah), and at the disposal of Allah...."[i]  Many Muslim commentators, as well assert that the spirit which appeared to Muhammad was Gabriel and that he is equivalent to the Holy Spirit  (see 2:97 and 16:102). Finally, in his "Ten Most Common Questions asked by Christian Missionaries against Islam" Zakir Naik asserts that he sees nothing unique about the spirit being associated with 'Isa as Surahs 15:29; 32:9 talk about Allah breathing his spirit into human beings.

[i]               Abd al-Masih, "Who is the Holy Spirit in Islam?" http://grace-and-truth.org/AM-WhoIsTheHolySpiritInIslam-Lecture.htm (Accessed 2013/01/24)

                Masih shows that a knowledge of Arabic is necessary to avoid Christianizing the Qur'an. With regards to the phrase 'the spirit of the Holy.' "This means, in Islam, when the Holy Spirit is written, it is never a spirit who is holy in himself. The word holy is not an attribute or an adjective, it is a genitive which means the spirit is not holy in itself but the spirit is property of the holy one. Here you have to distinguish the grammar in Arabic. This means holy is Allah and the spirit is his slave. The spirit is never of divine origin in Islam, even if it is wrongly translated in the different Qur'anic translations to blind the Christians. When we speak about the Holy Spirit in Islam, keep in mind, it is never the Holy Spirit, it is the spirit of the Holy, which means a slave of Allah. Just as Jesus is a slave of Allah in Islam, never Holy or divine in himself, so the spirit is not Holy or divine but he is a property of Allah, the Holy."

 

 

 

Thank you for the article Greg. As much as I wholeheartedly agree that Gospel friendship to all people, especially the "strangers" in our midst is vital, we should not in the same breath diminish the ideology that drove these young men to do what they did. I write this a couple of days after the beheading of a British military man in broad daylight.  The ideology that drove him and the Boston bombers is the same. In this case, a political response is necessary beside the important pastoral response that you have proposed. Here is a link to an interview given by someone responding to the incident in Britain. His greatest frustration is with politicians with wooly brains and rose coloured glasses. I sure hope that the Salaam Project does not contribute to the same thinking as these politicians.

.Shalom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GjNfQGm2HeI#!

Thank you Greg for this attempt to clarify the concept of jihad.

 Might I refer you and your readers to an article that cites multiple Islamic sources concerning jihad? It is entitled

The Politico-Religious Catalyst to the Early Islamic Conquests and is by Chester J. DeLagneau

http://chesterdelagneau.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/The-Politico-Religious-Catalyst-to-the-Early-Islamic-Conquests-w-page-s.pdf

I believe that your readers will agree that as always, Islam has a Mecca face which is the "let's get along we are all friends"--there is no compulsion in religion--and the Medina face which will inevitably be adhered to when Islam is in the majority---"convert, pay, leave or die".---and to which all jihad efforts, peaceful or violent are directed.

Shalom