In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen
As for the resurrection story, I don’t see Mike’s claims about the resurrection of Jesus story to be convincing. In fact he does not champion the biggest resurrection story in the Gospels (that of the many saints in Matthew). If the author made such a huge resurrection story up then is it not plausible that there were people willing to fabricate resurrection stories into the oral tradition of the time? Thus is it possible the resurrection story about Jesus was fabricated to be a physical resurrection or simply some conjecture after he was seen in visions or physically after being saved from a crucifixion?
And why is Licona not trying to prove the resurrection story of the many saints is historical? It’s because his faith does not revolve around it so he marginalises it just like he does with doctrines like the Trinity. Rest assured if we found a NT manuscript saying the resurrection of the saints is integral to Christian salvation there will be a number of Christians trying to prove it to be historical in the same way Licona operates with the Jesus resurrection story!
Licona is a minimalist who has tried to reduce the amount of convincing he needs to do in his preaching to Atheists (and uncertain Christians) hence why he goes down that path. Ehrman would point to the contradictions in and around the crucifixion story and the post resurrection narratives to highlight the lack of reliability of the accounts and he would also state the historical methodology Licona claims to be using does not deliberate on miracles as likely possibilities.
Ehrman would say Christians changed their stories to try and convince people into the faith.
In Exodus/Shemot3:14 prophet Moses asked God what is His name, then God said to him Ehyeh ašer ehyehאֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. The common English translation of this enigmatic phrase is: “I am what I am“, often contracted in English as“I AM” and often thought as one of God’s name. I probably think that the most literal translation of its meaning phrase from hebrew is “I Shall Be What I Shall Be“.
However one may wonder what this God’s Name really is? I would like draw the reader attention to the works of the great Rabbi Saadia Gaon ben Yosef (882-942) or Saʻīd bin Yūsuf al-Fayyūmialso known by the acronym “Rasag” who is the most famous Gaonic sage, a great Talmudic scholar, philosopher and hebrew grammarian.
In his Arabic translation of the Torah in Exodus 3 :14 he translated Ehyeh ašer ehyeh as “Al Azāly alladzī lā yazūlu” الأزلي الذي لا يزول which means
“The eternal which never perishes“
Interesting to note also that great medieval commentator of the Torah from rabbi Samuel ben Meir aka “Rashbam”, the grandson of rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, “Rashi.” also wrote on Exodus 3:14:
ויאמר אלוקים אל משה, if you do not know My name, I will tell you that I am the Eternal. This means that I can fulfill any promise I make. Now that I have told you that My name is“the Eternal,” כה תאמר, thus you shall say to the Children of Israel, “the One Who is the Eternal has sent me to you.”
It is evident that Rashag and Rashbam rendering of the verse do away with any possibility that God is one being in Three Persons. The entirety of the existence of God is thatHe shall always be eternal. The trinitarian truth claims that Jesus was begotten was then invalidated. God is always ONE unseparated exclusive PERSON the ONE who never ceases to exist therefore who absolutely do not die. If there is existence that ‘eternity’ belongs to, then there is ONE who exists and will aways exist, never begotten . If there is ONE who never perishes , then there is only ONE who does. No other “personages” can be introduced.
It appears a Christian, Richard Zetter, has had an oversight here and misunderstood the Verse. He contends the Verse teaches there's a promise of Paradise in the Gospel and the Torah for those who kill and are killed for Allah. He states: This verse promises Paradise for those who kill and are killed, fighting in the cause of Allah. It claims that such a promise is to be found in the Gospel.
I've looked into this and I don't really see this as a theme in the commentaries. In fact the translators don't seem to indicate this either. They seem to indicate the Verse teaches God promises Paradise to those who shun the ephemeral (by submitting one's will to God).
It is explicitly stated in Maulana Muhammad Ali's commentary that the Promise mentioned in the previous Scriptures is not concerning fighting/killing for God:
It should be borne in mind that the words they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain, are not a part of the promise, but are expressive of the condition of the Companions, and show that they were true to their promise. The promise to spend one’s person and property may be carried out in various ways under different circumstances, and the Companions of the Holy Prophet were as true to this promise during the thirteen years at Makkah as during the ten years at Madinah.”[Source]
The Study Quran also appears to teach the Promise refers to the purchase by God of the souls and wealth of the believers (it does not talk about killing or being killed).
Nouman Ali Khan states the Promise includes all Muslims and is not specifically concerning those who kill or are killed for God - again indicating he would not be expecting the previous Scriptures contain a Promise of Paradise for those who kill and/or kill for God but rather a Promise for those who have given up the world for devotion to Allah. Concerning those who kill/killed for God in just warfare, Nouman Ali Khan states this is the highest manifestation of this Promise but every Muslim is included in the Promise thus it is not confined to people on the battle field fighting for what is right.
Richard used the Sahih International translation and perhaps got a little confused but I will furnish other translations which are perhaps discern the Promise (underlined) from the statement concerning those who kill or are killed thus indicating they do not believe the Verse teaches the part about killing and being killed for God is in the Torah and the Gospel:
BEHOLD, God has bought of the believers their lives and their possessions, promising them paradise in return, ,[and so] they fight in God's cause, and slay, and are slain: a promise which in truth He has willed upon Himself in [the words of] the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Qur'an. And who could be more faithful to his covenant than God? Rejoice, then, in the bargain which you have made with Him: for this, this is the triumph supreme![Muhammad Asad trans of Q 9:111]
GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph. [Rashad trans. of Q 9:111]
God has purchased from the believers their persons and their goods, for (in return) theirs is the Garden. They shall fight in the cause of God, and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise that is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Who can fulfill a promise better than God? Rejoice then in the bargain you have made, for that is the Supreme Triumph.[Shabir Ahmed trans. of Q 9:111]
There's extra significance to Shabir Ahmed's translation as it carries a footnote in which he does offer Biblical verses which he believes Q 9:111 references. Interestingly enough he does not try and offer anything about killing or being killed for Paradise but rather verses about willingly submitting one's will to God. He cites Deut 6:4-5:
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
In addition to this there are other reference I reckon he cites from the NT, Matthew. I can't be 100% here as the formatting leaves it uncertain but you can check it for yourself. I think it's reasonable to assume he refers to Matthew 6:32-33 which I think is an instruction to prioritize God and the Hereafter over everything worldly.
32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Here's another I think he references. This seems to be close to the money, a Promise to compensate, with Paradise, those who have sacrificed this world for God. Matthew 19:29:
29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
I also think he refers to Matthew 10:39 which I believe Christians would interpret as whoever shuns this life will get the Hereafter (ever lasting life):
39Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
Syed Abul A'ala Maududi in his commentary talks about what the Promise is (again note the absence of talk concerning being killed/killing):
In this verse that aspect of the Islamic faith which determines the nature of the relationship between Allah and His servants has been called a transaction. This means that faith is not merely a metaphysical conception but is, in fact, a contract by which the servant sells his life and possessions to Allah and in return for this accepts His promise that He would give him the Garden in the life after death
Then he discusses parts of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament which allude to the Promise (notice he's not looking for verses about fighting or martyrdom) but rather a renouncement of the lower life in submission to God for the Eternal Life:
Some critics say that the statement of promise in the Torah and the Gospel is not confirmed by these Books. Their objection in regard to the Gospel is obviously wrong for even in the existing Gospels there are sayings of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) that confirm this verse. For instance:
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (MAT. 5: 10).
“He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (MAT. 10: 39).
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life.” (MAT. 19: 29).
It is, however, true that the matter of this transaction is not confirmed in its entirety by the existing Torah. For instance, there is a mention of the first part of the bargain at several places in one forth or the other: “Is not He thy father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee, and established thee?" (DEUT. 32: 6).
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (DEUT. 6: 4-5).
But as regards the other part of the bargain, that is, the promise of the Gardens, they applied it to the land of Palestine:
“Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.” (DEUT. 6: 3).
This is because the Torah does not give any conception of the life-after-death, the Day of Judgment, rewards and punishments in the Hereafter, though this creed has always been an inseparable part of the right way. This does not, however, mean that the Torah did not originally contain this creed. The fact is that the Jews had become so materialistic during the period of their degeneration that they had no other idea of a reward from God than the wellbeing and prosperity in this world. Therefore they perverted all the promises made by God in return for man’s service and obedience to Him and applied those to the land of Palestine.
In this connection, it should also be noted that the above mentioned changes became possible because the original Torah had been tampered with in several ways. Some portions were taken away from it and others were added to it. Thus, the Torah in the existing form is not purely the word of God but also contains the comments, etc. of the Jewish scholars mixed up with it. So much so that at some places it becomes difficult to distinguish the word of God from the Jewish traditions, their racial prejudices, their superstitions, their ambitions and, wishes, their legal interpretations, etc. all of which have gotten mixed with the word of God. (See E.N. 2 of Aal-Imran).
Abdullah Yusuf Ali's commentary also indicates the Promise (that was in the Torah and the Injeel) is that concerning the covenant of redemption: one must surrender oneself completely in exchange for ever lasting life (Paradise). He goes on to say this surrender may include fighting for the cause, but again he does not seem to think the Promise mentioned in the previous Scripture was that concerning killing or being killed for God
C1362. We offer our whole selves and our possessions to Allah, and Allah gives us Salvation. This is the true doctrine of redemption: and we are taught that this is the doctrine not only of the Quran but of the earlier Revelations, -the original Law of Moses and the original Gospel of Jesus.
Any other view of redemption is rejected by Islam, especially that of corrupted Christianity, which thinks that some other person suffered for our sins and we are redeemed by his blood. It is our self-surrender that counts, not other people's merits.
Our complete self-surrender may include fighting for the cause, both spiritual and physical. As regards actual fighting with the sword there has been some difference in theological theories at different times, but very little in the practice of those who framed those theories...
...The monkish morality of the Gospels in their present form has never been followed by any self-respecting Christian or other nation in history. Nor is it common-sense to ignore lust of blood in unregenerate man as a form of evil which has to be combated "within the limits, set by Allah" (9:112). (R).[Source]
I think there's a lot here for Richard to consider, I trust he is sincere enough to look into this and make the relevant corrections if he is convinced by the evidence to do so.
The distinguished Christian philosopher and believer in the crucifixionRev Professor John Hick, was honest enough to admit,
‘Historically it is very difficult to dispute the qur’anic verse since presumably it would not be possible for observers at the time to tell the difference between Jesus being crucified and his only appearing to be crucified – unless what is suggested is that someone else was crucified in his place.’
Religious Pluralism and Islam,Lecturedelivered to theInstitute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran, February 2005.
Muslims have refuted ad nauseum the claim that Islam allows rape of concubines (see here and here for examples) so I am not looking at refuting this claim. This is a focus on the idea of consistency (or rather a lack of it) when it comes to the Bible.
In this video we see a Christian apologist give a standard response to the idea of the Old Testament (yes, that's the Bible) allowing women to be captured and used as concubines or married off to the captors. His answer seems pretty straight forward to semi-smart people.
James White's comments condemn Jay Smith, Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Beth Grove
Anybody who can process the idea of context, judgement of God, and understand the fallacy of presentism can argue against Western secular humanist critique of Abrahamic religions and religious figures.
Sadly, what I'm noticing on the Muslim-Christian apologetics/polemics scene is a tendency to ignore such factors and argue as Western secular humanists against the other religion. This happens amongst the Christian camp. Westernized Christians go so far as to adopt an inconsistent standard of argumentation to attack Islam whilst ignoring or being unaware of their indirect attack on the Old Testament and the Trinitarian view of Jesus.
Glaring examples would include polygamy, capital punishment, violence and concubinage. The example of concubinage takes a life of its own as Christian polemics propagandize in order to equate that to rape and even introduce new, misleading and emotive terminology for concubines - "sex slaves"!
For the serious-minded and smart Christian evangelist there are two problems:
1. The argument is inconsistent as the Old Testament allowed soldiers to take captured women (Num 31:16-18, Num 31:31-40, Deut 21:10-14). The Old Testament is the word of Jesus along with the Father according to Trinitarian theology thus, for the Trinitarian, to argue this is rape is to indirectly accuse Jesus of allowing rape.
2. The Christian polemicist is setting Christians up to stumble out of the Church with premises which aren't couched in consistent Biblical thought. Think about it, a young Western millennial Christian is effectively being taught by Christian polemicists like David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun and Jay Smith that polygamy, concubines, warfare and capital punishment make a religion false. These millennials are being set up to stumble out of Christianity as they later build up their knowledge base of the Old Testament. This is all because "feel good Christian" polemicists like Wood and Smith don't appear to have the intellectual honesty or foresight to factor in consistency with the Bible.
Christians are quite often scoring own goals. That desire for the quick buck, quick convert or quick boost in personal popularity can quite easily assist the undoing of some young Christian's faith further down the line.
Surely smart Christians can see this. Sadly for Christianity there are less and less smart Christians operating in this arena and even fewer have the fortitude, or regard for Christianity, to take on their "feel good Christian" missionaries.
The claims that the Prophet Muhammad suffered from epilepsy rests on a number of shaky assumptions not supported by medical research. They are based solely on the many different descriptions of his state during his reception of revelation. First, the Prophet first received revelation when he was forty years old. This would mean that the Prophet suddenly developed epilepsy later in life as it has never been reported that he suffered from such experiences before. This is highly unlikely from a medical perspective.
Moreover, epilepsy is seen as one way of explaining the Prophet’s visions and spiritual experiences. The Prophet was not reported to have suffered from any such physical or mental conditions except during his reception of revelation. This would mean that the Prophet’s epilepsy occurred only when he was inspired by verses from the Qur’an. This would be a medical anomaly as epilepsy is not consistently associated with such experiences.
Untreated epilepsy also leads to mental damage and difficulties. The Prophet Muhammad received revelation for 23 years and it was never reported that his memory or mental faculties suffered in any way.
If we consider the entire life history of the Prophet, one sees very clearly the integrity and consistency of his personality and qualities. He transformed the belief, practice and mindset of a corrupt and backward people to a moral and civilized one. He became the father of a nation in a manner unparalleled in human history.
From his family life to his public persona, the details of his life were transparent. And what emerges from a fair-minded look at his personality is that all his achievements cannot be reduced to some single medical reason. Unlike many of the great figures of history, what the Prophet did, said and sanctioned is recorded authentically and even more so after he received revelation. Indeed the thousands of pages that have been written on his life reveal not a trace of erratic or irrational behavior.
The idea of the Prophet being an epileptic was first advanced by Orientalists whose arguments both from a scientific and historical view are very flimsy. Since then, the argument has been rehashed by propagandists and critics who care little for the basis of their claims. From the above, it is clear that when one looks fairly at the life of the Prophet, it is hard to take such an argument seriously.
Taken from: http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/3313
Also see Yusuf Estes on the claim Prophet Muhammad had epilepsy
Is Prof. Bart Ehrman really having such a debilitating effect on Christian apologist James White's to the extent it's waning his desire for serious discernment and consistency? It appears so. Well, more plausibly, it's more like the assistance Prof. Bart Ehrman has given Muslims is really grinding on James' gears (cycling pun intended assuming White has a proper bicycle and not some babyish pushbike or tricycle!).
So what was his motive this time round? Perhaps it was just an attempt to distance Muslims from Bart Ehrman. James claims Bart disrespects Islam based on him joking his life would be at risk if he wrote a critical book about the Quran. As highlighted in the video - James really should know better as Bart effectively told James the real reason why Bart doesn't write books about the Quran - he has no knowledge about the Quran.
A possible demonstration that Bart is living in James' mind rent-free; James condemns himself in that slander of Bart. James, only a matter of hours after his attack on Bart does exactly the SAME thing as Bart but not in a jocular manner. White was serious when he wrote this in response to Muslims using New Testament Professor JR Daniel Kirk's material:
Notice that Paul Williams identifies Kirk’s liberal meanderings as being “honest.” I wonder if he does the same for liberal interpreters of the Qur’an? I’d love to see him publicly post in defense of unorthodox, liberal interpretations of Islamic theology.Even he knows he would probably not be safe at Speaker’s Corner if he did so—not from danger from Christians, of course, but from his co-religionists!
For James White, it appears consistency matters but only when it's not close to your neck of the woods.
Can we have a cheesy Dividing Line type of line? Sure,one of the reasons why I do what I do is because I'm looking for that consistent Christian, to this day I'm yet to find one, I will continue looking for that Christian.
Here's the video highlighting some of the problems with James' attack on Bart Ehrman
So I've been asked to turn a response comment to James' blog post on the Muslim use of Prof. J.R. Daniel Kirk into a separate post. I will do it here - let's kill two birds with one stone.
James White recently blogged in responseto this blog poston his website. I’m not too sure why he didn’t link to this blog page – perhaps he seesa lot of difficult arguments for the Trinitarian Christiancoming from this side of the internet.
Anyways, for those interested White wasn’t that cantankerous or vituperative (same with his latest response to Ijaz – I think he’s learning that his tone and constant gnarling is off putting and does him no favours with serious minded folk) so no need for any of us to hide behind our duvets.
Here’s what he wrote:
I’ll be honest, it would be humorous, if it wasn’t so sad. Muslim apologists in general are fascinated by apostates. You see it on the Deen Show all the time, where some kid who was once a summer intern at a church is touted as a “former Christian minister” and “expert on Christian theology.” Bart Ehrman, apostate par-excellence, is their favorite, of course, since he has embraced his role as critic-in-chief of the New Testament. And I told everyone that Daniel J. Kirk, who became known primarily for his coming out in support of the profanation of marriage (I would think even the Muslims would cringe at his arguments there, but, of course, that would require them to actually be concerned about consistency, and only a small handful of them are) and the embracing of LGBTQRSTUV etc. movements as “the move of the Spirit in our day.” Part and parcel of Kirk’s apostasy is his abandonment of the faith in regards to the person of Jesus, and, of course, since Islam likewise denies the Bible’s teaching on the subject, well, Kirk, despite the glaring conflict in worldviews he brings to the NT text, is now one of their favorites. I predicted this, of course, and obligingly, Yahya Snow has provided the evidence. Notice that Paul Williams identifies Kirk’s liberal meanderings as being “honest.” I wonder if he does the same for liberal interpreters of the Qur’an? I’d love to see him publicly post in defense of unorthodox, liberal interpretations of Islamic theology. Even he knows he would probably not be safe at Speaker’s Corner if he did so—not from danger from Christians, of course, but from his co-religionists! But note their praise: “He should be commended for being bold enough to make the admission the NT is not reliable and is contradictory. He joins Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona in teaching it is contradictory.” Well, there is a confluence of names you never expected to see! Kirk, Ehrman, and Licona. But I have said for a very long time, your bibliology is a key dividing line, and Licona only has himself to blame for being listed in the group.
Of course, I really doubt almost any of our Muslims friends have ever even heard of, let alone read, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. If they would, they would realize they are all excited about the news from…long, long ago.
A few thoughts on this,there’s a fascination with ex-Christians WHO have become MUSLIMS on the Deen Show. James misses that out – the Deen Show really couldn’t care to feature Christian apostates who have become Mormons or Atheists. James misses that crucial dividing line and moves across that line into territory that is unfair and misrepresenting. In fact White’s colleagues and friends regularly feature and use material from wild-eyed ex-Muslims who aren’t even Christians! Not to mention the use of Nabeel Qureshi – styling him as a former Muslim.It seems as though the fascination with apostates is closer to White’s home than the home of the Deen Showor anybody on this side of the internet (the cool side)
As for James’ mentioning of Kirk’s views on gay marriage –it’s irrelevant. Muslims are leaning on Kirk's NT scholarship and research here - not about his views on gay marriage. Notemy comment directed to our Christian friend Ken. White, if consistent with this line of thinking, would have to shout from the roof top to all the Christian apologists around him who reject the idea of Limited Atonement (some whom James promotes or is friendly with like Jay Smith) “STOP CITING ME” and “STOP USING MY BOOKS” because you don’t agree with my views in other areas. James has not done that to the Pfander Films crowd.
Consistency matters. But when it will alienate all your buddies and a bulk of your consumer base it doesn't matter as much on the James White bike.
James also uses the old "oh you're using that guy (Prof. Kirk) but you won't use liberals talking about the Quran" argument. Erm, is Kirk coming out with wild theories that are being used by Muslims concerning the Bible? All he said was the NT iscontradictory and unreliable.Is that really such a liberal statement? I don't think so. Origen believed the NT contained errors too!Prof. Richard Baukham believes the sermon on the mount is not historical - is he a liberal too? Prof. William Lane Craig has issues with the biggest resurrection story in the Gospels? Is he a liberal? What about Prof. Larry Hurtado who as fordoesn't seem to believe the New Testament sayings can be reliably attributed to Jesus?
So James is guilty of a fallacy - he's comparing apples and oranges. But again, James has another problem as James does promote missionaries like Jay Smith and David Wood who do promote Dan Gibson's wild-eyed revisionist material.
What's that you're mumbling dear reader? You've never heard James rebuke such antics and you're wondering why he promotes such men? Well, it's because consistency gets swept under the rug when it may affect one of James' buddies and his consumer base.
Consistency matterswhenJames wants it to matter. He's consistent on that front.
White suggests Kirk is an apostate – what is an apostate in Christianity? I’ve seen Nick Peters (whose co-authored book on inerrancy I’ve read) state Christians can still be Christians even if they reject whole books in the NT. Is that guy more Christian than Kirk? Folk like Dr Gagnon (IIRC) believe Christians have compromised on the teaching that it is a sin to re-marry after divorce – what of the Christians who reject this because of modern day society, are they Christians? What of the other gay marriage supporting churches - the Anglican church I observe at is such – are they all apostates too? What about the70% of Christians who believe Jesus was created by God, are they Christian? What about folk like David Wood who openly say parts of the OT troubles them and get into their wife’s undies, are they Christian? What about folk who say one doesn’t have to believe in a Trinity doctrine to be a Christian (no early Christian had an earthly clue what it was but hey this is the tradition the evangelicals in America try to usher folk towards)
Consistency and Theology matter but, James, PLEASE don't insult the intelligence of your audience by setting up impractical standards of consistency: one can use Kirk in some regard and disagree with him on other issues as long as it is done with intellectual honesty.
But again, to stress who cares if Dr Kirk has such views as a Christian whilst using his scholarship in other areas. I use Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, FF Bruce, Tuggy, Edgar G Foster, Hurtado, Calvin, Michael Holmes and Bart Ehrman AND James White (yep, I love using a bit of White to show how some of the Islamophobes around White are inconsistent or just plainly making stuff up) but I don’t think hold on, these guys don’t agree with all my views so I can't use them. It would be a strange way to do scholarship to only use folk who agree with you – White doesn’t even do this!
Consistency matters but let’s not take it to an absurd, impractical and extreme level, James. That's just insulting the intelligence of your audience (mind you, given some of the James White Onlyists I've come across - you've got a few blunt tools in that tool box bro!)
James is right in that it is an odd bunching – Licona (who Cross Examined,org’s Jonathan McLatchie and AM’s David Wood use), Kirk, and Ehrman. And a public statement from Licona will be of use in understanding his views but hasn’t he made enough public statements for us to understand where he is at? He’s at inconsistency and confused central right now. How can Licona even deign to look at anybody with a straight face while propagating his minimal facts theory expecting folk to become believers in the Trinity doctrine and the Bible. If he was serious about consistency in methodology he would know the serious historical methodology he claims to be using sincerely would leave him to reject the Bible as a group of books chosen without any authority (unless you call Church tradition authority, I don’t!) by Christians who took it upon themselves to decide (and disagree with each other on) on what constituted a canon. He would also have to reject the Trinity idea as historically that doctrine is clearly a development where even after the Council of Nicea Christians did not know what to believe about the Holy Spirit as late as 380 CE as per Gregory of Nazianzus’ statement. Not to mention the extremely useful comments coming from Prof. William Lane Craig on the development of the Trinity doctrine – I hope to showcase those. In private discussion with a colleague I’ve noticed I’m not the only one who is aware of such.
Let’s wait for his new book to come out. I think Licona will really open the door for Christians to start seeing a new perspective which God willing will point them to the conclusion Islam is right; the Bilbe is unreliable and the Trinity doctrine never came from Jesus p. I’ve written some thoughts on Mike’s new book – pre-release:
I’ve only really got into discussions about Christianity because I saw White’s buddies literally lying or being wildly ignorant and reckless when talking about my faith: Shamoun, Wood, Smith, Beth Grove, Nabeel Qureshi (even White himself has made reckless comments which he has had to be corrected on by myself and others). For years I just refuted polemics against my faith – after I thought the critics were just getting repetitive and more folk were at the helm of dealing with polemics against Islam I thought I’d dabble with looking into their faith. I know a colleague has recently made similar remarks and I’d imagine it is the same for many Muslims. All this because Christians did not have a huddle to say hey guys we need to be more careful in talking about Muslims and Islam – let’s stop the lies, inconsistencies and distortions.
FAO Speakers Corner. Jay Smith has a reputation for dishonesty. He has claimed to have 100s of ex Muslim converts in the London area but he, upon being asked why there's no evidence of these converts by Justin Brierley of Premier Christian Radio, he cited the reason of safety and security. Yet he is somewhat contradicted by his own colleagues. Hatun Tash claims to be an ex Muslim and she is in public view. Beth Grove has claimed to have had some in public view too.
The suspicion now seems to be either Jay is telling porkies, exaggerating and/or he has been taking advantage of refugees (asylum seekers) who have been in the news for pretending to convert to Christianity in order to get a perceived boost in their asylum application.
Was Jay Smith's (Asylum?) Conversion Scam Exposed by Justin Brierley, Hatun Tash and Beth Grove?
Questions have now got to be asked of Pfander Films' Jay Smith. He has a reputation for dishonesty; this new video does no favours to his already tarnished reputation. Perhaps a sincere and serious minded Christian will ask Jay about this seeking answers.
The revisionist theory of Petra being an earlier qibla (prayer direction) for Muslims prior to Mecca is essentially part of a larger conspiracy theory amongst revisionists who posit Islam developed over a period of time after the Prophet. It will not come as a surprise that advocates of this revisionist theory also adopt ideas such as "the Quran was invented after the Prophet" (or even before the Prophet!) P
Jay Smith of Pfander Films is the chief advocate of such polemics in Christian-Muslim apologetics circles. One would imagine, to the embarrassment of serious-minded and more scholarly Christians.
Admittedly I don't follow Jay Smith as closely as some but from the Islamic Awareness article, it appears Smith has revised his own theories; back in the early 2000s he used to claim the qibla was in the vicinity of Jerusalem and nowadays he's claiming it is Petra.
Regardless of any shifts in his thinking, his theories fall flat on their face as shown on Islamic Awareness 15 years ago:
Modern studies have shown that in the early mosques astronomical alignments were used for qibla. Astronomical phenomenon such as sunrise or sunset during equinoxes, solstices, Pole star, Canopus, etc. were used to direct the mosques towards qibla. Concerning the early mosques in Egypt and Iraq, David King says:
The first mosque to be built in Egypt was built facing winter sunrise, and it was this direction which remained the most popular throughout the medieval period amongst the religious authorities. Likewise some of the earliest mosques in Iraq were built facing winter sunset. Only recently has it become known that astronomical alignments were used for the qibla, so that some modern historians (sic!) have mistakenly inferred from the orientations of the early mosques in Egypt and Iraq that they were not built to face the Kaaba at all, but rather to face some other sacred site. Now, however, we even know why such astronomical alignments were used
This completely refutes the position of Patricia Crone, Michael Cook and Christian missionary Joseph Smith. [Source] Video of Mansoor taking apart Jay Smith's errors
As brilliantly outlined in this video by the erudite Mansoor, Smith's conclusions and leanings on the work Dan Gibson and a certain "Dr Theus" are wild-eyed to the point of giving up on critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Smith's theory of Petra being the early qibla (and his subsequent theory of Muslims inventing a new history and role for Mecca after the fact) are based on Google Earth images of mosques. Mansoor highlights the obvious problem in this methodology that anybody who offers it a little thought would recognise; one cannot ascertain the qibla via satellite images of mosques.
One must have knowledge of the interior of the mosque, Mansoor mentions floor plans and the mihrab (a niche in the interior of the wall of a mosque denoting the direction of prayer for worshippers in the mosque). Let me emphasise the methodology of folk like Jay Smith. If I showed you a Google Earth image of your local mosque would you be able to ascertain the direction the Muslims at that mosque pray towards? No, of course not. Smith would have folk believe he can do this for ancient mosques!
As pointed out in the video,"Dr Theus" even criticises the methodology of Dan Gibson and how arbitrary it was in terms of deciding where each mosque's qibla was. One could just as easily decided the qibla was the direction of Hawaii rather than Petra using such a method.
At the end of the day this is an excellent example of how folks with agendas in the revisionists community churn out "research" which is essentially manipulated in attempts to support one's pre-conceived contentions.
Basically Muslims would direct the qibla towards what they observed in the horizon when facing one of the walls of the Kaba. To read about the astronomocal alignments which Muslims were using over the centuries to ascertain the qibla have a read of the relevant section in this article. A couple of take home points here are:
1. As the Kaba has four walls there would have been differences in the way Muslims directed their mosques - you'll use different astronomical alignments depending on which wall of the Kaba you face to observe the horizon
2. It wasn't an exact science and thus finding old mosques which aren't orientated accurately is nothing to write home about. IA do show the most famous mosque outside of Arabia, masjid al aqsa, was oriented correctly towards Mecca.
Another excellent snippet to be alert to would be the leeway the Islamic tradition affords Muslims when it comes to determining the qibla; it doesn't have to be an exact science: There are several traditions in the Islamic heritage showing that the determination of the qibla was accomodated with some flexibility except for Makkah owing to the little knowledge in the fields of geography and geometry in the early centuries of Islam. Such traditions can be found in several ḥadīth collections like Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah and Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik as stated below.
a. Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik
Malik narrated to me on the authority of Nafiʿ that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said: "[Anywhere] between the East and the West is taken as a qibla as long as one heads towards the House". Source
The Petra conspiracy theory has no evidence to it at all and I'm sure deep down this shamed Christian missionary knows it's absurd - even if he is unable to comprehend what the scholarly Muslim was saying he will surely ask why there is NOTHING about Petra in early Muslim literature and why there was no upheaval and dispute after this supposed shift to Mecca!
So why does he make outlandish claims like these and try to prop them up with faulty reasoning and misinformation? It's because of his agenda to "destroy Islam".
