More Issues with Vicarious Atonement

Posted on by 7 comments

More Issues with Vicarious Atonement

Question Mark

Introduction

 

As a norm, Christianity has accepted that the only mode of salvation is through the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him). Obviously this is not in accord with the established biblical view of God’s plan of salvation; it has got theological, logical and practical issues with it and we are going to look at some of them herein.

 

The Appeal to “Justice”

 

To validate the concept of vicarious atonement (salvation through the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (p)), Christians appeal to the God’s attribute of justice. They would argue that although God is merciful to forgive sins yet He is also just at the same time. Consequently God cannot – just-like-that – forgive sins. The debts, in other words, the consequence of the sins have to be borne. Just at this point of discussion where a non-Christian would almost inadvertently think that the consequence of the sins have to be borne by the sinner, Christians would, ironically, give an unjustified twist! They would assert that the consequence of the sins was borne by Jesus (peace be upon him) at the cross! And this in itself is an issue. The scrupulous Christian God who has to be “just”, should accept debts only from the debtor but this is certainly not the case? Not surprisingly the Jewish God was consistent with this notion:

 

“Parents are not to be put to death for crimes committed by their children, and children are not to be put to death for crimes committed by their parents; A PERSON IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH ONLY FOR A CRIME HE HIMSELF HAS COMMITTED.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

 

And the Jewish patriarchs were committed to the same:

“When a person is accused of wronging another and is brought to your altar in this Temple to take an oath that he is innocent, O LORD, listen in heaven and judge your servants. PUNISH THE GUILTY ONE AS HE DESERVES, AND ACQUIT THE ONE WHO IS INNOCENT.” (1 Kings 8: 31-32)

 

Therefore, we find that the Jewish concept of sin, forgiveness and salvation would come close to human cognizance and acceptance as compared to its Christian counterpart.

Nevertheless, Christians explain that Jesus (peace be upon him) borne the consequence of the sins out of God’s attribute of mercy. God was so merciful that He gave His own “son” to be sacrificed. In other words, out of “mercy”, God paid the debts by Himself to Himself! It sounds absurd but unfortunately, this is how it works. The Christian God would have to be offered the spilling blood of a perfect innocent for the debts of filthy criminals. Ironically, the Jews were not informed of this blood-needy attitude of their God:

 

“I do not reprimand you because of your sacrifices and the burnt – offerings you always bring me. And yet I do not need bulls from your farms…Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Let the giving of thanks be your sacrifice to God,” (Psalms 50:8-14)

 

Observe that God of Israel needed “thanks” – sincere thanks – and not sacrifices. Nevertheless, for some reasons the act of repentance – sincere repentance – was not enough for the Christian God to justify the fulfillment of His debts. Why couldn’t the currency of sincere repentance be accepted against the debts of sin? Especially when, earlier, presumably the same God was accepting repentance and mourning to wipe away the consequences of sins:

 

Be merciful to me, O God, BECAUSE of your constant love. BECAUSE of your GREAT MERCY wipe away my sins! Wash away all my evil and make me clean from my sins. I have sinned against you – only against you – and done what you consider evil. So you are right in judging me; you are justified in condemning me. I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful. Sincerity and truth are what you require; fill my mind with your wisdom. Remove my sin and I will be clean; wash me; and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear the sounds of joy and gladness; and though you have crushed me and broken me, I will be happy once again. Close your eyes to my sins and wipe out all my evil. Create a pure heart in me, O God, and put a new and loyal spirit in me. Do not banish me from your presence; do not take your holy spirit away from me. Give me again the joy that comes from your salvation, and make me willing to obey you. Then I will teach sinners your commands, and they will turn back to you. Spare my life, O God, and save me, and I will gladly proclaim your righteousness. Help me to speak, Lord, and I will praise you. YOU DO NOT WANT SACRIFICES, or I would offer them; you are not pleased with burnt-offerings. MY SACRIFICE IS A HUMBLE SPIRIT, O God; you will not reject a humble and repentant heart.” (Psalms 51:1-17)

 

To the plea of a sinner, God of Israel had the following model of reply:

 

“I am the high and holy God, who lives for ever. I live in a high and holy place, but I also live with people who are humble and REPENTANT, so that I can restore their confidence and hope. I gave my people life, and I will not continue to accuse them or be angry with them for ever. I was angry with them because of their sin and greed, and so I punished them and abandoned them. But they were stubborn and kept on going their own way. “I have seen how they acted, but I will heal them. I will lead them and help them, and I WILL COMFORT THOSE WHO MOURN. I offer peace to all, both near and far! I will heal my people. But evil men are like the restless sea, whose waves never stop rolling in, bringing filth and much. There is no safety for sinners,” says the LORD.” (Isaiah 57:15-21)

 

Unlike the Christian concept where it is of paramount importance to God that the consequences of sin be discharged, the Jewish God taught that merely turning to Him in repentance would be enough for wiping off of sins:

 

“The LORD will punish the Egyptians, but then he will heal them. They will turn to him, AND HE WILL HEAR THEIR PRAYERS AND HEAL THEM. (Isaiah 19:22)

“God saw what they did; he saw that they had given up their wicked behavior. SO HE CHANGED HIS MIND AND DID NOT PUNISH THEM AS HE HAD SAID HE WOULD.” (Jonah 3: 1-10)

 

Through prophet Isaiah, God of Israel expressed His modus operandi of sin, forgiveness and salvation. He declared that if a sinner would turn to Him in sincerity then He is too merciful to forgive “quickly”. In other words, He would not go to the ledger books searching for reconciliation of credits and debits:

 

“Turn to the LORD and pray to him, now that he is near. Let the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the LORD, our God; HE IS MERCIFUL AND QUICK TO FORGIVE. “My thoughts.” says the LORD, “are not like yours, and my ways are different from yours. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways and thoughts above yours.

“My word is like the snow and the rain that come down from the sky to water the earth. They make the crops grow and provide seed for sowing and food to eat. So also will be the word that I speak – it will not fail to do what I plan for it; it will do everything I send it to do. “You will leave Babylon with joy; you will be led out of the city in peace. The mountains and hills will burst into singing, and the trees will grow where now there are briars; myrtle-trees will come up in place of thorns. This will be a sign that will last for ever, A REMINDER OF WHAT I, THE LORD, HAVE DONE.” (Isaiah 55:6-13)

 

On the foregoing, recognized Christian Bible expositor John Gill provides a rather non-Christian insight:

 

In some things there may be a likeness between the thoughts of God and the thoughts of men, as to the nature of them: thoughts are natural and essential to them both; they are within them, are internal acts, and unknown to others, till made known; but then the thoughts of men are finite and limited, whereas the thoughts of the Lord are infinite and boundless; men’s thoughts have a beginning, but the Lord’s have none; though not so much the nature as the quality of them is here intended: the thoughts of men are evil, even the imagination of their thoughts, yea, every imagination is, and that always and only so; but the thoughts of God are holy, as appears from his purposes and covenant, and all his acts of grace, in redemption, calling, and preparing his people for glory: the thoughts of men, as to the object of them, are vain, and nothing worth; their thoughts and sentiments of things are very different from the Lord’s, as about sin, concerning Christ, the truths of the Gospel, the people of God, religion, holiness, and a future state, and in reference to the business of salvation; they think they can save themselves; that their own works of righteousness are sufficient to justify them; their privileges and profession such, that they shall be saved; their wisdom, riches, and honour, a security to them from damnation: however, that their sincere obedience, with repentance for what is amiss, will entitle them to happiness: but the thoughts of God are the reverse of all this; particularly with respect to pardoning mercy their thoughts are different; carnal men think of mercy, but not of justice, and of having pardoning mercy in an absolute way, and not through Christ, and without conversion and repentance; and so this is a reason why men’s thoughts are to be forsaken, because so very unlike to the Lord’s. OR ELSE THESE WORDS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ARGUMENT, PROVING THAT GOD DOES ABUNDANTLY PARDON ALL RETURNING SINNERS; SINCE HE IS NOT LIKE MEN, BACKWARD TO FORGIVE, ESPECIALLY GREAT AND AGGRAVATED CRIMES, BUT IS READY, FREE, AND WILLING TO FORGIVE, EVEN THOSE OF THE MOST AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

Neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord; the ways which God prescribes and directs men to walk in are different from theirs; his are holy, theirs unholy; his are plain, theirs crooked; his are ways of light, theirs ways of darkness; his are pleasant, theirs not so, at least in the issue; his lead to life, theirs to death; and therefore there is good reason why they should leave their evil ways, and walk in his. Moreover, the ways which he takes in the salvation of men are different from those which they, naturally pursue, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE PARDON OF SIN; HE PARDONS FREELY, FULLY, WITHOUT ANY RESERVE, OR PRIVATE GRUDGE, FORGETTING AS WELL AS FORGIVING.(John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Isaiah 55:8)

 

Finally, the Jewish God unequivocally declared that He does not blot out sins for the sake of anybody else’s “sacrifice” but out of His own free will driven by His abounding mercy

 

“Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions FOR MINE OWN SAKE, and will not remember thy sins.” (Isa 43: 24-25, King James Version)

 

Bible commentator Adam Clarke concurs:

 

“For mine own sake – In the pardon of sin God can draw NO REASON BUT from his own infinite goodness. (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Isaiah 43:25)

 

These were only some instances from the Hebrew Bible, a fuller account can be read here. Nevertheless, the preceding does establish that (i) the attribute of “justice” do not preempt God from accepting sincere repentances for blotting out transgressions. (ii) We saw that the free-flowing, unconditional mercy of God does not need that a cultic sacrifice of an innocent be made to forgive sins.

Before we are done with the Christian appeal to “justice”, we would like to side track a bit to ponder that the Christian God looks to be a God of principles. He is ready to forgive but then His principle of justice comes in and He has to wait until the consequence of sin is paid in full. However, all of a sudden, the same God of principles would hardly have any scruples when He would purportedly breach all principles of monotheism to incarnate. For Paul, it is merely an issue of God condescending to human levels:

 

“And look out for one another’s interests, not just for your own. The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had:

He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to b0ecome equal with God. Instead off this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like man and appeared in human likeness. He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death – his death on the cross. (Philippians 2:4-8)

 

There are more issues with the Christian version of atonement: Christ (peace be upon him) allegedly paid for the sins of the world. However, this was a onetime payment. Consider the following New Testament [1.] passage:

 

For how can those who abandon their faith be brought back to repent again? They were once in God’s light; they tasted heaven’s gift and received their share of the Holy Spirit; they knew from experience that God’s word is good, and they had felt the powers of the coming age. And then they abandoned their faith! It is impossible to bring them back to repent again, because they are again crucifying the Son of God and exposing him to public shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

 

The same message is reiterated in even simpler words:

 

Instead, let us encourage one another all the more, since you see that the Day of the Lord is coming nearer. For there is no longer any sacrifice that will take away sins if we purposely go on sinning after the truth has been made known to us. (Hebrews 10:25-26)

 

The preceding passage information is compatible with the Hebrew sacrifices: Once an animal was slaughtered, its sacrificial benefits were useful only for that particular year. For any subsequent year, a new sacrifice was to be made. Similarly, once the ultimate, costly sacrifice (c.f. 1 Peter 1: 18-19) was paid for the sins of humanity, there cannot remain any possibility of backsliding. People who have been manumitted cannot expect any room as far as any further sins are concerned. This explains why Christians baptized are often called as “born-again”. Thus, the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) can be used only once and if it is exhausted without proper use then there is no way out except for eternal damnation.

This, however, portrays an infinitely merciful God as a mere parochial accountant who would give a unit of mercy in return of commensurate unit of sacrifice; and that’s it – end of transaction. Any new transaction would need a new sacrifice, but since there is no other sacrifice left after Jesus (peace be upon him) therefore, there is no chance for salvation.

Furthermore, this also expects that man be perfect (c.f. Matthew 5:48); it assumes that man would not sin “after truth has been made known to” him; to say the least, it is impractical even to remotely assume that man would not sin. For example, Christian(s)assume that pre-Jesus (peace be upon him) mercies were rendered due to future – would-happen – crucifixion. However, we know that multiple Jewish communities including prophets committed sins as ghastly as worshipping idols; Solomon (peace be upon him) himself, for example; and yet they are all saved!!?? (c.f. 1 Kings 11)!

However, contrary to the problems emanating from the Christian philosophies, the God of Old Testament did not use to forgive sins based on the sacrifices which were made, ironically, for Him:

 

“I do not reprimand you because of your sacrifices and the burnt – offerings you always bring me. And yet I do not need bulls from your farms…Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Let the giving of thanks be your sacrifice to God,” (Psalms 50:8-14)

 

In fact, Yahweh would forgive purely on the basis of His attribute of abundant mercy:

 

Be merciful to me, O God, BECAUSE of your constant love. BECAUSE of your GREAT MERCY wipe away my sins! Wash away all my evil and make me clean from my sins. I have sinned against you – only against you – and done what you consider evil. So you are right in judging me; you are justified in condemning me. I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful. Sincerity and truth are what you require; fill my mind with your wisdom. Remove my sin and I will be clean; wash me; and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear the sounds of joy and gladness; and though you have crushed me and broken me, I will be happy once again. Close your eyes to my sins and wipe out all my evil. Create a pure heart in me, O God, and put a new and loyal spirit in me. Do not banish me from your presence; do not take your holy spirit away from me. Give me again the joy that comes from your salvation, and make me willing to obey you. Then I will teach sinners your commands, and they will turn back to you. Spare my life, O God, and save me, and I will gladly proclaim your righteousness. Help me to speak, Lord, and I will praise you. YOU DO NOT WANT SACRIFICES, or I would offer them; you are not pleased with burnt-offerings. MY SACRIFICE IS A HUMBLE SPIRIT, O God; you will not reject a humble and repentant heart.” (Psalms 51:1-17)

 

Further, the Jewish God was not a onetime-forgiver; rather he would forgive the Jewish community over and over again under the leadership of different Hebrew prophets and patriarchs (Joel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Samuel, David, Isaiah). We documented it here.

The attribute of oft-forgiveness is in fact the part and parcel of the One True God:

 

Your Lord knoweth best what is in your hearts: If ye do deeds of righteousness, verily He is Most Forgiving to those who turn to Him again and again (in true penitence).(Qur’an 17:25, Yusuf Ali’s Quran Translation)

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

On one hand where the Christian concept of vicarious atonement is not supported by the Hebrew Bible; on the other hand, vicarious atonement also entails logical issues with it: Firstly, it is not just and logical enough to punish somebody else in place of the actual sinner and then reward the sinner for the miscarried judgment on the innocent!?

Secondly, it is not logical and practical enough to assume that man would not sin after accepting the alleged ultimate sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him). Even if it is allowed, and man owing to his nature backslides, then obviously there would remain no other way out for salvation as the ultimate sacrifice is exhausted.

Even though these are obvious issues with Christian philosophies of sin and salvation yet, ironically, the Hebrew Bible provides acceptable solutions: The God of Hebrews is just enough to punish only the transgressors and at the same time merciful enough to accept sincere repentances over and over again.

 

Footnotes:

[1.] Although the Book of Hebrews is anonymous, however, the “Eastern church” always accepted it to be penned by Paul himself:

 

“In the Eastern church, there was no problem of canonical acceptance because it was regarded as one of the “fourteen” epistles of Paul.” (The Open Bible, The Author of Hebrews, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p.1244)

 

 

Are Honor Killings Islamic?

Posted on by One comment

M_Id_95955_honour_killingDisclaimer: This is by no means intended to be a defense of honour killings, but an exposition on the legalistic history of honour killings as is presented in Islamic and non-Islamic jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, the term ‘honour killing‘ has become synonymous with ‘Muslim’ culture. Yet, its roots run far deeper in European culture, than it does in the other traditions. I will attempt to be as objective as I can in exploring the numerous historical and contemporary scholastic sources that I have based this exposition upon. It is my intention to clarify the position of honour killings within Islamic judicial thought, while simultaneously elucidating the masses, particularly European on its role and status within their own legal traditions.

The European Source

Roman society at one point in time functioned on the socio-cultural institution known as pater familias, commonly translated as “father of the family“. In this tradition, the father is seen as the head of the household, the person with the most authority. While for most this seems acceptable, the legalistic implications of this in Roman law are far more ghastly than what meets the eye, we read from, “A Casebook on Roman Family Law“, the following [1]:

• the pater familias, male head of the household, sole owner of all property belonging to the household, and endowed by law with considerable power over all his descendants through the male line no matter their age;

• his wife, joined to him by astonishingly fragile bonds of matrimony but sharing with him neither in the control nor in the ultimate disposition of the household’s wealth except as concerns her own property and her dowry (a fund that is, however, managed largely at his discretion so long as the marriage lasts);

• and his descendants, captured within a household structure that allows them little true social or economic independence until they are finally freed from his mastery not by their own adulthood but by his death.

The book goes on to state [2]:

Two features of Roman family law may particularly surprise a contemporary viewer. First, this law reflects the values of a world still largely dominated by males, in which, therefore, the public role of adult women is considerably restricted by custom and by law (see especially Cases 228–235). Much of this male domination is emphatically reinforced within family law, where, in the centuries just before the classical era, the Romans had actually moved from an “archaic” model of marriage in which the wife was a full member of the household (albeit in principle subordinated to her husband, Cases 37–40) to a “classical” model in which the wife’s presence is legally so tenuous that she seems at times only to be tolerated as an unavoidable prerequisite for the bearing and raising of children.

With this patriarchal  concept in mind, we find the first justification for an honour killing in Roman legalistic tradition, some 300 to 400 years before the advent of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) [3]:

The Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus (coreign: A.D. 175–180) sent this rescript: “If a husband, borne on a flood of anger, kills his wife whom he catches in adultery, he will at least not receive the penalty of the lex Cornelia on murderers.” For the deified Emperor Antoninus Pius (reign: A.D. 138–161) sent a rescript to Apollonius, as follows: “When a man does not deny that he killed his wife whom he caught in adultery, capital punishment can be remitted, since it is very hard to restrain legitimate anger, and his punishment should result from his doing more (than he should have) rather than from his having no duty to take revenge. So it will suffice, if he is of modest rank, that he be handed over to a life of hard labor; and if of more respectable rank, that he be relegated to an island.”

From this, we can clearly see that the tradition of legalizing honour killings was founded upon European Roman laws, particularly those known as Lex Iulia.

The French Connection

Before the French Revolution occurred, the Southern territory of France followed droit écrit, essentially the Roman Written Law. We now read from the Napoleon Series’, “The Civil Code: An Overview“, as it describes to us how the Roman Law (Lex Iulia) became part and parcel of the French Civil Code [4]:

On 24 thermidor, an VIII (13 August 1800) Napoleon, after consulting with Jean-Baptiste Champagny, appointed a commission to prepare a draft of a uniform civil code for France. Napoleon saw a new code not only as a legal necessity, but a means of consolidating the new regime and as an instrument of reconciliation.  A code, Napoleon stated, which every man could read and understand, would enable every citizen to know “the principles of his conduct.”  The commission consisted of François-Denis Tronchet, known as the “Nestor of the Aristocracy,” 73, president of the Court of Cassation. Tronchet, who had had a long legal career practicing before the Paris Parlement and had been one of Louis XVI’s legal defenders, was an advocate of the Northern customary law.  Napoleon called Tronchet the “soul” of the debates in the Council of State. Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis, nearly blind, 54, a Provençal from Aix, a commissioner on the Prize Court. Portalis was the “philosopher” of the commission.  He was a champion of the Roman law and a loyal Catholic.  Of Portalis Napoleon said, “Portalis would be the most eloquent of speakers if he only knew when to stop.” Tronchet and Portalis are credited as the principal authors of the Code.  Félix-Julien-Jean Bigot de Préameneu, 52, of Rennes, a commissioner in the Court of Cassation, was a defender of the customary law. Jacques Maleville, 58, a lawyer of Bordeaux, judge of the Court of Cassation.  Maleville was a champion of the Southern Roman law.

Sadly, the tradition of “honour killings” was carried over into the French Civil Code [5]:

Following the tradition of Roman law, a woman found guilty of adultery could be imprisoned for between 3 months and 2 years depending on the inclination of the husband.  A husband convicted of adultery (a husband had to introduce the mistress into the home to meet the requirement of adultery) was only subject to a fine of from 100 to 2,000 francs.  A man who, in a fit of passion, murdered his spouse in flagrante delicto was guilty of no crime.  A woman in the same situation was subject to the rigors of the law.

In French, it is commonly known as crime passionel  or “crimes of passion”. The man was excused for the murder of an infidel (unfaithful) woman if he killed her in a fit of rage, known as in flagrante delicto or ‘at the moment’ of witnessing her infidelity. Less than 100 years after such a law was instituted (the excusing of crimes of passion), one French Statistician citing its prevalence had this to say [6]:

In 1894, a top statistician from the French Ministry of Justice published a report that exposed a shocking increase in the rate of acquittal for cases tried by jury in French assize courts. Emile Yvernes reported that acquittals for serious assault (coups et blessures graves) rose from 27% to 78% between 1860 and 1890, acquittals for murder grew from 15% to 34%, and the rate of acquittal for homicide increased from 16% to 24%. By contrast, acquittals in crimes against property rose only slightly during the same period, from 17% to 19%. Like many of his peers, Yvernes was particularly worried by the high rate of acquittal for so-called “crimes of passion” committed between lovers or spouses. He contended that “these misdeeds, often inspired by passion, hate, or vengeance, more and more often find with the jury not only indulgence, but absolution.”

A great read on the public fixation of enjoying crime passionel can be viewed here, “Crime Passionel in French Courts” by Robert Ferrari (California Law Review – 1918 – UC Berkeley School of Law).

The Introduction of the French Civil Code into the Islamic World

We first find the application of the French Civil Code being mimicked in Ottoman era laws in 1858. That is some 48 years after its formal introduction into the French Civil Code in 1810. Amira El Azhary Sonbol states in her book, “Beyond the Exotic Woman“, the following [7]:

Similar clauses are found in the Ottoman Penal Code of 1858 and the French Penal Code of 1810. It is important to stress that these clauses are found in the civil codes of several Mediterranean countries and are not particular to the Middle East. A more specific modern example is the implementation of French civil codes in Egypt that resulted in the application of these same (French) laws condoning crimes of passion. “By exception, the individual who has surprised his spouse in the obvious act of adultery and slain her in that manner, his participation is declared excusable by article 201 and punishable with imprisonment in place of criminal penalties for murder and the wound and injuries having willingly caused the death without the intention to do so.”

Egypt’s law was not only based on French Civil Code, but the judiciary’s method and power of prosecutions is also based on the French Parquet system known in Arabic as niyaba [8]:

“An institution based on the French parquet system in which judicial personnel have responsibility for investigating and presenting criminal cases to courts; the niyaba system was adopted first in Egypt and later emulated in many other Arab countries.”

Due to the European influence of legal modernization in the Muslim world, the Tribunaux Mixte d’Egypte or the Mixed Courts of Egypt popularized the influence of the French Penal Code. This can be seen with the  Kingdom of Jordan instituting a similar law to crime passionel committed in flagrante delicto, as in 1960 with the Jordanian Penal Code, #16, article 340 which contains a clause for ‘excuse in murder’ wherein the murderer is ‘exempt from any penalty’.

Islamic Scholarship on “Honour Killings”

The most important question we can ask ourselves is, does the Islamic faith justify honour killings? To answer this question, we quote an Islamic jurist’s exposition on the issue [9]:

In the name of Allāh, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalāmu ῾alaykum wa Rahmatullāhi Wabarakātuh
Islam does not give permission to any individual to kill a family or clan member based on his belief that the victim brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community. Only the Islamic Court can carry out the punishments (hudood) set out by the Shariah. (See: Shaami 6/104, Darul Ma’rifa)

If someone’s family member does an act contrary to the teachings of Islam, then it is his responsibility to amicably stop the person from violating the injunctions of the Shariah and to advise him/her.

A person who accuses another of committing adultery and cannot bring four witnesses who clearly saw the act taking place, is guilty of falsely accusing someone of adultery, the punishment for which is being flogged with eighty stripes. (This punishment, too, is to be carried out by the Court).

Allah, the Exalted, says:

Flog those who accuse any of the chaste women (of committing adultery), but fail to backup (their charges) with four eyewitnesses — flog them with eighty lashes, and thereafter do not accept their testimony ever again. Surely, they are the wicked ones. (Quran 24:4)

According to Islam, the punishment for wrongfully killing someone is very severe:

If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever). And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. (Quran 4:93)

In short, honour killing is not permitted according to Islam. Encyclopaedia Britannica has correctly stated:

“Such “honour killings” are in fact violations of both civil and Islamic law, but perpetrators frequently use religious reasons to defend their actions, thereby giving the crime a veneer of justification.”[i]

And Allāh Ta῾āla Knows Best

Wassalāmu ῾alaykum

Ml. Faizal Riza

Correspondence Iftā Student, Australia

Checked and Approved by:
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Dārul Iftā, Madrasah In῾āmiyyah

“Honour Killings” in the Western World

Crimes of Passion are quite common in the Western Legal System, so prevalent is it to the US that it even has a moniker, “The Law of Texas” [10]:

crime of passion n. a defendant’s excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of “premeditation.” This usually arises in murder or attempted murder cases, when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her “beloved” having sexual intercourse with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair. To make this claim the defendant must have acted immediately upon the rise of passion, without the time for contemplation or allowing for “a cooling of the blood.” It is sometimes called the “Law of Texas” since juries in that state are supposedly lenient to cuckolded lovers who wreak their own vengeance. The benefit of eliminating premeditation is to lessen the provable homicide to manslaughter with no death penalty and limited prison terms. An emotionally charged jury may even acquit the impassioned defendant.

Interestingly, in 2009, the Coroners and Justice Bill was defeated in the House of Lords after peers voted 15 majority against it. The Bill’s purpose is summed as such [11]:

Peers have thrown out planned legislation to stop murder suspects claiming so-called crimes of passion in order to restrict their convictions to manslaughter.

Harriet Harman, the then Minister for Women claimed the excuse of ‘crimes of passion’, had allowed men to get away with murder for centuries. Rebuffing her, the Bill was degraded by many [12]:

The clause, in the Coroners and Justice Bill, was defeated in the House of Lords after peers, including a retired law lord and judge, attacked it as “outstandingly obnoxious” and “astonishing”.

It is a setback for Harriet Harman, the minister for women, who drove the planned changes forward, claiming men had got away with murder for centuries. Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary said it was a victory for “common sense”.

The proposal would have stripped a man or woman from claiming their murderous actions had been driven by a loss of self control after the discovery their partner had been unfaithful. Currently, it can be used as partial defence of provocation which can see a murder charge reduced to manslaughter.

In January this year Ms Harman said: “For centuries the law has allowed men to escape a murder charge in domestic homicide cases by blaming the victim. ‘Ending the provocation defence in cases of “infidelity” is an important law change and will end the culture of excuses.”.

But in the House of Lords on Monday evening peers voted by 99 to 84, majority 15, to overturn the plan to prevent sexual infidelity acting as a partial defence. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a retired law lord, said: “It is little short of astonishing that Parliament should be asked to tell a jury whether sexual infidelity is enough to cause a man or woman to lose their self-control.”

Lord Thomas of Gresford, a deputy High Court judge, described the exemption of sexual infidelity as “illogical” and “outstandingly obnoxious”. He added: “What it really reflects is something that has run through the 12 years of this Government and that is a refusal to trust the good common sense of the British jury.”

Cross-bencher Lord Neill of Bladen, a retired judge, added: “I think we would make ourselves look extraordinarily foolish if we say a jury cannot take account of what most people recognise as being the most dominant cause of violence by one individual against another.

“Every opera you go to, every novel you read has sexual infidelity at some point or other – otherwise they are not worth reading or listening to.”

Finally, in 2010 the Act was allowed to come into effect but was much watered down[13]:

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which came in to effect in 2010, replaced the murder defence of provocation with a new partial defence of “loss of control”, but exempted sexual infidelity as a reason for such a loss.

Unsurprisingly in 2012, a Court of Appeal Judge, restored the use of ‘crimes of passion’ as a viable excuse! [14]:

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said juries should be allowed to consider the fact a victim had been unfaithful as a possible provocation – in defiance of a new law that banned it as an excuse. It restores a defence in so-called “crimes of passion” but Lord Judge insisted infidelity cannot be the sole reason for the murder and other “triggers” must be shown. Sitting in the Court of Appeal, he quashed the conviction of a man who killed his wife after she admitted sleeping with five men and then goaded him about it.

The last Labour Government changed the law surrounding murder defences to exclude sexual infidelity in “loss of control” killings. But Lord Judge said to exclude it in cases where it was integral was to risk “injustice” and that the law was likely to “produce surprising results”. His ruling risks a fresh conflict between the judiciary and MPs after effectively dismissing a law drawn up by parliament.

His ruling risks a fresh conflict between the judiciary and MPs after effectively dismissing a law drawn up by parliament.

Conclusion

As we have read, honour killings are clearly not sourced from Islamic theology. What we see is a cultural and legal tradition birthed in the Roman Empire, fostered in France and sold to the Arab populace. Unfortunately, after almost two centuries of constant application, the once Roman-French law has become intertwined into Arab society and by extension, Arab culture. Arab culture is largely also Muslim culture and in doing so, a cultural habit, if not artifact of the Europeans has found homage in an unsuspecting Arab world. The concept of honour killings or crime passionnel, is categorically detested in Islamic law, but is now part of the Arab cultural tradition as their constitutions were based on French Legal Codes. As can be clearly seen, even the British have trouble trying to curb the law from being enacted and repealed.

The problem with those who blame Islam for ‘honour killings’, seem to forget its history and development, or they choose to ignore its prevalence in their own societies. Often times the “Law of Texas”, or “Passion Crimes” are not labelled as such in Western Societies, and thus often fly under the radar of many.

In conclusion, Islamic theology forbids the notion of crime passionnel and considers this act to be murder for which the perpetrator should be persecuted to the full extent of the law.

Sources:

[1] – “A Casebook on Roman Family Law”, by Bruce W. Frier and Thomas A.J. McGinn (Oxford University Press – 2004) – Page 4.
[2] – Ibid.
[3] – “A Casebook on Roman Family Law”, by Bruce W. Frier and Thomas A.J. McGinn (Oxford University Press – 2004) – Page 114.
[4] – “The Civil Code: An Overview“, The Napoleon Series by Tom Holmberg.
[5] – Ibid.
[6] – “Judicial authority and popular justice: crimes of passion in Fin-de-Siecle Paris“, by Eliza Earle Ferguson, Department of History, University of Albuquerque (New Mexico).
[7] – “Beyond the Exotic – Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies”, by Amira El Azhary Sonbol (The American University in Cairo Press) – Page 192.
[8] – “The Rule of Law in the Arab World – Courts of Egypt and the Gulf” – Nathan J. Brown (Cambridge University Press – 1997) – Page xvi.
[9] – “Are Honour Killings Justified in Islam?“, by Maulana Faizal Riza (Dārul Iftā, Madrasah In῾āmiyyah).
[10] – “Crimes of Passion” – Online Legal Dictionary (The People’s Law Dictionary, Real Life Dictionary of the Law), by Gerald and Kathleen Hill.
[11] – “Moves to stop infidelity as defence for murder defeated – Men who kill their unfaithful partners may still be able to escape murder by using their infidelity as a defence after a defeat for ministers.” – Telegraph UK (2009).
[12] – Ibid.
[13] – “Murder can be ‘crime of passion’, says top judge” – Telegraph UK (2012).
[14] – Ibid.

True Monotheism: A Reader on the Trinity

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is important to fully understand any topic, before we enter into the arguments against it. The purpose of this reader is to introduce the Muslim and the Christian alike into the proto-orthodox (present day Christian theology) teaching of the Trinity. By doing this, we enable ourselves to think rationally and logically instead of polemically. This is important, for if we truly want to engage in discussion with each other, there must be a foundation from which we can operate.

What is the Trinity?

I have found the following definition communicates what needs to be said with the greatest clarity: Within the one
Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. – [1]

Read more

Christian and Against Immigration?

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I always chuckle when right wing Missionary zealots like David Wood, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer spew their garbage about immigration. Remember kids, ‘America is for Americans!‘, ‘Say NO! to Immigration!‘, ‘ACT! for America‘, let’s just forget that it was African slaves who built your nation, let’s also forget that the original Americans were and still are, American Indians. Let’s forget that the South was divided between Mexicans and the French (in Louisiana), or those damned Irish and Italian immigrants during America’s industrial boom didn’t exist. Let’s forget to quote what the Bible says about immigration, even though we claim to be Christians.   See, I’m not a hypocrite, I recognize that America was built on the blood, sweat and tears of the immigrated peoples. So what does the Bible say about allowing immigration?

“‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself…….37 “‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.’” – Bible, Leviticus 19:33-34, 37.

Don’t defend your racism, superiority complex, hate and myopic world view by ignoring what your scripture says. I’m calling you right winger’s out. If you are a Christian and you hate immigrants, you may have a thing or two to take up with that God you worship.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Easter Story Found in Quran

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This is a response to Answering Islam’s Oksar on, “Easter Story Found in Quran“.

  1. Introduction.
  2. The Qur’aan on the Death and Resurrection of Jesus.
  3. When did Jesus Die According to the Qur’aan?
  4. Why Did Jesus Have to Die?
  5. Conclusion.

Introduction

Oskar deceptively tries to utilize shadh (solitary) opinions from one translator’s understanding of the Qur’aan and pretends as if one person’s opinion overrides that of all the other centuries of Islamic scholarship. Cherry picking to say the very least. Unfortunately for Oskar, his writing was not very convincing, to the point that the only portion of the Easter story he found was maybe the word ‘death’, but not exactly because as he concedes it doesn’t mean ‘death’. In realising his futility he then jumped to the Bible for help which really is inconsistent writing since the topic led me to believe that the arguments were presented from the Qur’aan. Strange guy this Oskar.

Read more

Missionary Mishaps: Iblis the Angel!?

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It’s often seen as a ‘contradiction’ that an angel (angels have no freewill in Islamic theology), Iblis (may Allaah’s curses be upon him) was able to disobey God as is recorded in the Qur’aan. The reality is however, that Iblis (may Allaah’s curses be upon him) was counted as an angel because he only did acts that the angels would do, so great was his outward piety. However, the Qur’aan mentions that he is a Jinn (a being with freewill), and this he was able to disobey God, something an angel in Islam can’t do. A brother who’s a part of a group I occasionally have discussions in, had this experience:

cc-2013-ahmedjinn

If only the missionary had read more of the Qur’aan.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Dr. James Tabor: Gospel of Mark’s Ending is “Patently Bogus” and “Patently False”

Posted on by Leave a comment

The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

 

by James Tabor

 

And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing.

Most general Bible readers have the mistaken impression that Matthew, the opening book of the New Testament, must be our first and earliest Gospel, with Mark, Luke, and John following. The assumption is that this order of the gospels is a chronological one, when in fact it is a theological one. Scholars and historians are almost universally agreed that Mark is our earliest gospel–by several decades, and this insight turns out to have profound implications for our understanding of the “Jesus story” and how it was passed down to us in our New Testament gospel traditions.

The problem with the gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient. First it is significantly shorter than the other gospels–with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24), and John (21). But more important is how Mark begins his gospel and how he ends it.

He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary is never named in Mark’s gospel at all–and Jesus his called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on this here. But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!

Like the other three gospels Mark recounts the visit of Mary Magdalene and her companions to the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning. Upon arriving they find the blocking stone at the entrance of the tomb removed and a young man–notice–not an angel–tells them:

“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)

And there the gospel simply ends!

Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee,not in Jerusalem.

This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking. Here is that forged ending of Mark:

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce “liberal” scholars who point out this forgery, charing that they are trying to destroy “God’s word.”

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark.[1] Clement of Alexandria and Origen (early 3rd century) show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke, and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, there are two other endings, one short and the second an expansion of the longer ending, that also show up in various manuscripts:

[I] But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

[II] This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.

I trust that the self-evident spuriousness of these additions is obvious to even the most pious readers. One might in fact hope that Christians who are zealous for the “inspired Word of God” would insist that all three of these bogus endings be recognized for what they are–forgeries.

So that said, what about the original ending of Mark? Its implications are rather astounding for Christian origins. I have dealt with this issue more generally in my post, “What Really Happened on Easter Morning,” that sets the stage for the following implications.

1. Since Mark is our earliest gospel, written according to most scholars around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, or perhaps in the decade before, we have strong textual evidence that the first generation of Jesus followers were perfectly fine with a gospel account that recounted no appearances of Jesus. We have to assume that the author of Mark’s gospel did not consider his account deficient in the least and he was either passing on, or faithfull promoting, what he considered to be the authentic gospel. What most Christians do when they think about Easter is ignore Mark. Since Mark knows nothing of any appearances of Jesus as a resuscitated corpse in Jerusalem, walking about, eating, and showing his wounds, as recounted by Matthew, Luke, and John, those stories are simply allowed to “fill in” for his assumed deficiency. In other words, no one allows Mark to have a voice. What he lacks, ironically, serves to marginalize and mute him!

2. Alternatively, if we decide to listen to Mark, who is our first gospel witness, what we learn is rather amazing. In Mark, the last night of Jesus’ life, he had told his intimate followers following their meal, “But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee” (Mark 14:28). What Mark believes is that Jesus has been “lifted up” or “raised up” to the right hand of God and that the disciples would “see” him in Galilee. Mark knows of no accounts of people encountering the revived corpse of Jesus, wounds and all, walking around Jerusalem. His tradition is that the disciples experienced their epiphanies of Jesus once they returned to Galilee after the eight day Passover festival and had returned to their fishing in despair. This is precisely what we find in the Gospel of Peter, where Peter says:

Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord …

You can read more about this fascinating “lost” Gospel of Peter here, but this ending, where the text happens to break off, is most revealing. What we see here is precisely parallel to Mark. The disciples returned to their homes in Galilee in despair, resuming their occupations, and only then did they experience “sightings” of Jesus. Strangely, this tradition shows up in an appended ending to the gospel of John–chapter 21, where a group of disciples are back to their fishing, and Matthew knows the tradition of a strange encounter on a designated mountain in Galilee, where some of the eleven apostles even doubt what they are seeing (Matthew 28:16-17).

The faith that Mark reflects, namely that Jesus has been “raised up” or lifted up to heaven, is precisely parallel to that of Paul–who is the earliest witness to this understanding of Jesus’ resurrection. You can read my full exposition of Paul’s understanding “the heavenly glorified Christ,” whom he claims to encounter, here. And notably, he parallels his own visionary experience to that of Peter, James, and the rest of the apostles. What this means is that when Paul wrote, in the 50s CE, this was the resurrection faith of the early followers of Jesus! Since Matthew, Luke, and John come so much later, and clearly reflect the period after 70 CE when all of the first witnesses were dead–including Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus, they are clearly 2nd generation traditions and should not be given priority.

Mark begins his account with the line “The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Clearly for him, what he subsequently writes is that “Gospel,” not a deficient version thereof that needs to be supplemented or “fixed” with later alternative traditions about Jesus appearing in a resuscitated body Easter weekend in Jerusalem.

Finally, what we recently discovered in the Talpiot tomb under the condominium building, not 200 feet from the “Jesus family” tomb, offers a powerful testimony to this same kind of early Christian faith in Jesus’ resurrection. On one of the ossuaries, or bone boxes in this tomb, is a four line Greek inscription which I have translated as: I Wondrous Yehovah lift up–lift up! And this is next to a second ossuary representing the “sign of Jonah” with a large fish expelling the head of a human stick figure, recalling the story of Jonah. In that text Jonah sees himself as having passed into the gates of Sheol or death, from which he utters a prayer of salvation from the belly of the fish: “O Yehovah my God, you lifted up my life from the Pit!” (Jonah 2:6). It is a rare thing when our textual evidence seems to either reflect or correspond to the material evidence and I believe in the case of the two Talpiot tombs, and the early resurrection faith reflected in Paul and Mark, that is precisely what we have.[2] That this latest archaeological evidence corresponds so closely to Mark and Paul, our first witnesses to the earliest Christian understanding of Jesus’ resurrection, I find to be most striking.

  1. “The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913)” Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition [↩]
  2. We offer a full exposition of these important discoveries in our recent book, The Jesus Discovery. The book is a complete discussion of both Talpiot tombs with full documentation, with full chapters on Mary Magdalene, Paul, the James ossuary, DNA tests, and much more. You can read my preliminary report on these latest “Jonah” related findings at the web site Bible & Interpretation, here, and a good account of the controversy here. During March and April, 2012 I also wrote a dozen or more posts on this blog responding to the academic discussions, see below under “Archives” and you can browse the posts by month. [↩]

 

End of Dr. Tabor’s post.

Notes:

  • Emphasize wherever not matching with original, is ours.

 

                                                                     Post Script           

Question Mark

 

There is a lot of vital information that Dr. Tabor has pointed out. Notice the following:

 

  1.  “Later” Christians found Mark’s gospel to be deficient consequently it was placed second in the New Testament canonization of gospels along with suitable appendix. This undoubtedly indicates that (i) “earliest” Christians – the Markan community – did not consider the gospel to be “deficient” in need of any “fixation”. For them the evangelist – supposedly Mark – was providing the “Good News” of Jesus (p) (c.f. Mark 1:1). (ii) The process of canonization was very subjective. It was left to the theological experiences of later Christians, and not the texts themselves, to decide upon the canonization.

 

  1. Dr. Tabor provides two reasons for the “concocted” ending of the gospel to be “patently false” and “patently bogus”: (i) Earliest gospel – the gospel of Mark – which does not has the post-crucifixion appearance of Jesus (peace be upon him) will have precedence of antiquity on her counterpart gospels (Matthew, Luke, John) which do have post crucifixion sightings of Jesus (peace be upon him). So, the additional ending to the gospel is “forgery”. (ii) Hundreds of best and earliest manuscripts do not include the fabricated ending as attested by multiple “orthodox” fathers.

 

 

  1. Dr. Tabor’s choice of word for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) post-crucifixion appearance is very intriguing. Notice on multiple occasions he has used “resuscitated” body than resurrected body! This alludes that Jesus (peace be upon him) would have “appeared” to be dead in the wake of his crucifixion (compare Qur’an 4:157), when in reality he was only senseless and later his body was “resuscitated” to strength. This further implies that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not die and thus, probably, Dr. Tabor did not choose the word “resurrected”. Modern Muslim theologians like Dr. Shabbir Ally do endorse the theory of resuscitation in their exegesis of Qur’an 4:157.

 

Related Readings:

The Obvious Theological Biases Driving Gospel of Mark

Missionary Mishaps: Surgery is a Sin

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’ve seen these missionaries say lots of stupid things in my time. This however, has to be one of the worst things I’ve ever seen a missionary state.

cc-2013-faithhealing

When I look at the world today and think to myself, “how have things gotten this bad?“, there’s always a missionary to answer that question for me. This discussion happened on our resident ex-Christian, Br. Hamza’s facebook page.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Missionary Mishaps: Hate Thy Neighbour

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

When Missionaries spurred on by David Wood and Robert Spencer’s rhetoric are allowed to reign free on discussion groups, they reveal their true natures by becoming hateful, spiteful, abusive and racist. As Muslims, we condemn this behaviour. They try to mock Muslims by attaching Muslim names to their profiles and then by preaching hate against Muslims and as seen in this photo, Muslim children. We’d like to thank David Wood especially for encouraging folks of this type for their behaviour.

Warning: Some of the language used is shocking.

cc-2013-whipboy

 

May Allaah guide these people.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Who Heard the Prayer of Gethsemane?

Posted on by 7 comments

Who heard the prayer in Gethsemane?

Reading through the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane’s Garden struck my attention. A prayer which showed unwillingness and submission from the son to the father, but what struck me the most was the confusion of who heard the prayer and how was it recorded in three of the four above gospels?

After the last supper Jesus predicts Judas’ betrayal as well as Peter’s denial. Jesus takes his disciples and goes to Gethsemane. He requests from his disciples to stay while he goes further away to pray taking with him only Peter, James and John in which he then asks them to keep watch as he moves further away from them in order to pray as he felt sorrowful and troubled.

Matthew 26
36 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Mark 14
32 They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.” 35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

What was the distance Jesus moved away from the disciples (Peter, James and John)? The Gospel of Luke provides us with an estimation.

Luke 22
39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 HE WITHDREW ABOUT A STONE’S THROW BEYOND THEM, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

For further clarification let’s look at Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

And he was withdrawn from them, That is, from the three disciples, Peter, James, and John, whom he took along with him, leaving the rest at some further distance; and from these he removed,  about a stone’s cast; fifty, or sixty feet(1) from the place where they were:

and kneeled down and prayed; the following prayer.

Fifty to sixty is between 15.24 to 18.288 meters

Having noticed that Jesus distanced himself from the disciples and remained in solitude praying (where he could not be heard) taking breaks to check on his disciples only to find them fallen asleep.

Matthew 26
40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

Mark 14
37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. 41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping a:? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

Luke 22
45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”

In conclusion, as the disciples were distanced away from Jesus and since they were constantly falling asleep, the question we ask again is who heard Jesus’ prayer and how were they recorded into the Bible? Interestingly the Gospel according to John does not mention specifically what took place in the prayer and simply states the following:

John 18
18 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »