Usman Sheikh discusses his recent Oxford University MPhil thesis where he counters the polemics of Christian scholars such as Andy Bannister. We also discuss if the Qur’an endorses the Bible.
Categories: Islam
Usman Sheikh discusses his recent Oxford University MPhil thesis where he counters the polemics of Christian scholars such as Andy Bannister. We also discuss if the Qur’an endorses the Bible.
Categories: Islam
My simple rebuttal would be that there had to be a new religious text because Islam was a new kind of religion. A new kind of religion In the sense that it was a globalist imperialistic religion of war, on all levels, aiming at total world dominion. No religion before it was a political religion as Islam is. The Koran provides the required dynamic and justification. The bible could not therefore it had to be replaced. Not because it had to be corrected. It was just not suited to the purpose.
He makes the usual claim that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. This can’t be true for one simple reason. All these religions have different mediators between man and God. In the case of Judaism there is none required I would say. Moses played that role by the giving of the law but after that was no longer required. In the case of Christianity it is Jesus. In the case of Islam it is Mohammed. This theological chasm cannot be bridged. It seems that some islamic apologists seem to argue that all we have to do is get rid of Paul and that’s it. It’s not.
You missed the point. Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be all of them) are worshiping The One and Only True God who creates heaven, earth and all creatures. The God of Abraham. Not The 3 in 1 god.
Oh really? How did that happen I wonder?
I don’t know, it just happened like that.
The Gnostics were attacking Christianity long before Islam was making its “precision strikes”. Islam was just jumping on an old bandwagon so it seems. Did it bring any original ideas?
Or is the original idea of Islam actually the way it unifies various ideas, from existing monotheistic religion and paganism, in to one political religion?
Of course it had to create a new final prophet to do this.
Ooops I seem to have missed the point again, oh dear. If at first you don’t succeed….
I think so, you missed it again.
Good boy, if you realized it!
I think his idea that the writer of the Koran has the right to redact the text of the OT because this is how the NT text developed is nonsense.
If we accept his argument then anyone can take the text of the OT and arbitrarily change it even now thousands of years after it was written.
This is what happened in the writing of the Koran. The writer simply took a text originally written thousands of years before and arbitrarily changed it to suit his agenda.
Even if you go with the theory of an evolving redacted text of the NT, which I don’t, it was still a process which took place within the circle of eyewitnesses or witnesses to the eyewitnesses.
Picking up an ancient text and changing it hundreds if not thousands of years after it was first written is a completely different kettle of fish.
“This is what happened in the writing of the Koran. The writer simply took a text originally written thousands of years before and arbitrarily changed it to suit his agenda.”
How about this:
This is what happened in the writing of the OT and NT. The writer simply took a text originally written thousands of years before and arbitrarily changed it to suit his agenda.
Yes, it is a completely different kettle of fish.
Give an example of any historical statement in the OT that was changed by the NT.
On the other hand the Koran rewrites and changes the history of the OT.
OT: The God is not human
NT: The God is human
Now, Where are The Torah , The Injeel, The Quran from?
The ethical teaching of the Koran is also diametrically opposite to the ethical teaching of the bible.
The ethical teaching of the old and new testaments are consistent with each other but directly opposite to the teaching of Islam which is summed up in the command to love your fellow muslim and hate non-muslims if you want a reward from Allah.
consistent?
So The God become human is consistent?
For example consider the embellishments in the Koran to the biblical accounts of Noah and Abraham. These are made to entice hatred for the infidel thus creating a tribalistic ethic foundational to the imperialistic agenda of Islam. This lays the ethical groundwork for a holy jihad of warfare against the infidel.
This is comparable to the class warfare ideology of communism.
Christianity teaches against this.
“Now go. Attack the Amalekites. Completely destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare the Amalekites. Put the men and women to death. Put the children and babies to death. Also kill the cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys.’
These are made to entice hatred for the infidel thus creating a tribalistic ethic foundational to the imperialistic agenda of Christianity. This lays the ethical groundwork for a crusade of warfare against the infidel.
This is comparable to the class warfare ideology of communism.
Christianity teaches this.
And where are Saul and the Amalekites?
You tell me
Saul being commanded to kill was just for him. All commands to kill are exceptions to the law in the bible. Thou shalt not kill does not exist in Sharia law. There are numerous commands to fight unbelievers in the Koran. Muslims can pick any one of them because they are not contextualized in the Koran to any person, time or place.
If there was a Caliph he has to wage offensive Jihad against unbelievers or he is breaking Sharia law. There is nothing in Sharia against individual believers waging offensive Jihad because their intention makes their action just.
“There are numerous commands to fight unbelievers in the Koran. Muslims can pick any one of them because they are not contextualized in the Koran to any person, time or place.”
Now let’s see in the bible:
Kill the woman – OK
Kill the children – OK
Kill the babies – OK
Kill the unbelievers – OK
Kill the blasphemer – OK
Kill the stubborn and rebellious son – OK
Kill the homosexual – OK
Kill anyone who curses their father or mother – OK
Kill anyone who commits adultery – OK
So Christian can pick any one of them.
Christianity teaches this
Why should killing homosexuals not be fine?
Trying to prove Christianity through the Quran is like trying to prove the Bible through the Avesta, it’s an illogical idea