Articles
The Qur'an is replete with historical errors, an interesting fact given that Muslims believe it to be the very word of God who should know his history. One such error concerns the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Temple Mount is the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. The religious claim to the Temple Mount is based on an historical error in the Qur'an.
Sura 17:1 says, "Glorified be He who took His servant for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show of him our Ayat. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer."
This verse has its origin in an event which took place around 620 AD, near the end of Muhammad's time in Mecca. As the story is told, one night Muhammad is mounted on a human/mule hybrid creature with wings called Buraq and taken to the Al-Aqsa mosque on Temple Mount in Jerusalem. From there he ascends into heaven, passes through seven levels of heaven. At the seventh level he communicates with Allah who tells him Muslims are obligated to pray five times a day. Muhammad then descends back to the Temple Mount and returns to Mecca on the back of Buraq, all in the span of one night.
But here's the problem: The Al-Aqsa mosque was not built for decades later, long after the death of Muhammad! How could Muhammad have visited a place that did not exist?
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The background behind this verse (known as "The Occasion of Revelation") is well documented in several sources. Though the following seem dry and uninteresting, they are needed to clearly establish, via Islamic sources, that Islam indeed teaches that Muhammad visited the Al Aqsa mosque in 620AD.
BIOGRAPHERS WHO WRITE ABOUT MUHAMMAD'S JOURNEY
Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar (aka Ibn Ishaq - son of Isaac) wrote the earliest biography of Muhammad known to exist, around 760AD. Regarding this particular incident, Ibn Ishaq records the oral tradition passed to him from several diverse sources. He relates that no fewer than seven different and distinct sources from which this story is told:
- Abdullah bin Mas'ud
- Abu Sa'id al-Khudri
- Aisha, Muhammad's youngest wife
- Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan
- al-Hasan al-Basri
- Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri
- Umm Hani d. Abu Talib
Clearly, all the narrators of this event say Muhammad went to Jerusalem. Here is a sample from Ibn Ishaq's biography.
"According to what I have heard Abdullah bin Mas'ud used to say: Buraq, the animal whose every stride carried it as far as its eye could reach on which the prophets before him used to ride was borught to the apostle and he was mounted on it. His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, until he came to Jerusalem's temple." (Underline mine)
"In his story Al-Hasan said: 'The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived at the temple at Jerusalem. ...Then the apostle returned to Mecca and in the morning he told the Quraysh what had happened. Most of them said "By God, this is a plain absurdity! A caravan takes a month to go to Syria and a month to return and can Muhammad do the return journey in one night?" Many Muslims gave up their faith; some went to Abu Bakr and said, "What do you think of your friend now, Abu Bakr? He alleges that he went to Jerusalem last night and prayed there and came back to Mecca."
The 14th century historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir quotes Abu Bakr as saying, when questioned about Muhammad's journey, "I give him credence in communication from heaven, early in the day or in the evening, so how should I not believe him regarding Jerusalem?"
Furthermore, in addition to the traditions mentioned above from Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir's biography includes additional traditions not mentioned by Ibn Ishaq.
"Also, Al-Hakim related, from al-Asamm, from Ahmad b. Abd al-Jabbar, from Yunus b. Bukayr, from Asbat b. Nasr, from Isma'il al-Suddi, who said, "The five daily prayers were enjoined upon the Messenger of God (SAAS) at Jerusalem the night of his journey there, 16 months prior to his emmigration."
Some had doubts Muhammad actually made this journey, as can be seen from Al-Hasan's narration above. Ibn Kathir addresses these doubts in a test put to Muhammad by Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad's earliest converts to Islam:
"In his account al-Hasan recounts that Abu Bakr asked him to describe Jerusalem, and that the Messenger of God (SAAS) did so."
Modern biographers also attest to the fact of this event. Martin Lings, a British convert to Islam who wrote a biography of Muhammad published in 1983, says the following:
"The prophet then told how he mounted Buraq, for so the beast was named; and with the Archangel at his side, pointing the way and measuring his pace to that of the heavenly steed, they sped northward beyond Yathrib and beyond Khaybar, until they reached Jerusalem. Then they were met by a company of Prophets -- Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others -- and when he prayed on the site of the Temple, they gathered together behind him in prayer."
Thus, Muhammad led communal prayers in Jerusalem at 'the Temple' which must be a reference to a mosque, the only place communal prayers take place.
Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, another modern biographer, wrote his book "When the Moon Split: A Biography of Prophet Muhammad" which was published in 2002. He says of this event:
"Perhaps two of the most significant and remarkable events in the Prophet's life were his 'Israa" (Night Journey) and 'Mi'raaj' (Ascension). Israa refers to how one night Allah took Muhammad from the Ka'bah to Bait Al-Maqqdis (the "Sacred Mosque of Worship," i.e., Solomon's Temple) in Jerusalem, and 'Mi'raaj' refers to the Prophet's actual ascension to heaven from Jerusalem." (Parentheses in original)
That Islam and the Quran teaches that Muhammad actually visited Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque is well established in Islamic historical sources. But scholars of the Qur'an and hadith (traditions attributed to Muhammad) also agree as to the historical fact of this journey.
COMMENTARIES OF THE QUR'AN ON MUHAMMAD'S JOURNEY
Ibn Kathir wrote an extensive commentary (tafsir) on the Qur'an. In his exegesis of Sura 17:1 he says:
"to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibrihim Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them." (Parenthesis in original)
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, author of the most popular English translation of the Quran, has the following footnote regarding this verse:
"The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock. This and the mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (al Masjid al Aqsa) were completed by by the Amir Abd al Malik in A.H. 68."
In "The Message of the Qur'an" published in 2003 by Muhammad Asad we find the following comment to the first verse of Sura 17:
"The above short reference to the Prophet's mystic experience of the "Night Journey" (al-isra) to Jerusalem and the subsequent "Ascension" (mi'raj) to heaven is fully discussed in Appendix IV at the end of this work. ... "The Remote [lit., 'farthest'] House of Worship", on the other hand, denotes the ancient Temple of Solomon - or rather, its site - which symbolizes here the ling line of Hebrew prophets who preceded the advent of Muhammad and are alluded to by the phrase "the environs of which We had blessed". The juxtaposition of these two sacred temples is meant to show that the Qur'an does not inaugurate a 'new' religion but represents a continuation and the ultimate development of the same divine message which was preached by the prophets of old"
In other words, Asad says there is religious significance in that Muhammad worshipped at the Temple Mount because it ties Islam, which Muslims believe to be a continuation of true monotheistic Judaism, back to the original Jewish temple.
Sayyid Qutb, a leader in the early years of the Muslim Brotherhood wrote "In the Shade of The Quran," a commentary on the Quran from an Egyptian prison in the 1950s. In it he comments on this verse:
"The story of the night journey by the Prophet from the Sacred Mosque in Makkah to the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and then his ascension from there to the highest heaven and the world of which we know nothing, is mentioned in several reports. It has been the subject of of much controversy, which continues even today."
Qutb goes on to describe the controversies, none of which question that Muhammad actually visited the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Most of the controversies surround where the journey originated from in Mecca. That Muhammad actually visited Al Aqsa in Jerusalem in unquestioned.
AN EMBARRASING PIECE OF HISTORY
What are we to make of all this? The Quran says in verse 17:1 that Muhammad went to Jerusalem and specifically the Al Aqsa mosque during his lifetime. Muhammad died in 632 AD. Authoritative Islamic scholars, both ancient and modern, all agree Muhammad made a visit in one night to the Al Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, the site of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, during an even historically set around the year 620AD, 16 months prior to his emigration to Medina in 622AD.
Yet we know historically that the Al Aqsa mosque did not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. Abd Al Malik built the Dome of the Rock in 691AD and completed the adjacent Al Aqsa mosque in 712AD. How then could Muhammad have visited a place which was not to exist for another 72 years in the future? And how could the author of the Qur'an, the all intelligent Allah, have made such a blatant and bone headed historical error?
RESOLVING THE EMBARASSMENT?
At least one Islamic scholar has recognized this problem and has attempted to rescue Allah's reputation and that of all previous scholarship.
Dr. Shabbir Ahmed wrote his version of the Qur'an, "The Quran as it Explains Itself." In the preface to Sura 17, Ahmed makes the comment:
"ASRA (Night Journey) is often mixed up with MI'RAJ (ascension). Since Allah is Omnipresent, the notion of going to meet with Him over the skies does not stand up to reason. 'ASRA' signifies the night journey and it refers to the beginning of the exalted Messenger's emigration from Makkah to Madinah by night. Verses 20:77 and 26:52 use the same term for migration of Prophet Moses along with his followers across the sea. Also consider 17:2. Masjid Al Aqsa means, the Remote Mosque and refers to the 'Remote Mosque' in Madinah, the place where Muslims used to establish congregational prayers before the Prophet's arrival at the city."
"The famous Masjid Al Aqsa, (the so-called Qiblah Awwal, or the supposed First Holy Sanctuary, also known as Haram Sharif) in Jerusalem was, in fact, built in 72AH (691 C.E.) by the Umayyad Ruler, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, about 60 years after the exalted Messenger passed on."
"Jerusalem, until the Muslim conquest under the second Caliph of Islam in 637 C.E., had been under the control of the Byzantine Christians for centuries, and there was no person worshipping in a Masjid anywhere in the world except Madinah. Hence, the question of a presence of a Masjid in Jerusalem during the life times [sic] of the exalted Prophet should not arise."
Indeed, how could Muslims have conducted prayers, and how could Muhammad have led a communal prayer in Jerusalem when the mosque did not exist, nor were there even any Muslims in Jerusalem at that time?
Unfortunately for Shabbir Ahmed, his is a lone voice kicking against centuries of solid Islamic scholarship. He has been dismissed as irrelevant; Wikipedia recently removed an article about his translation of the Quran with the comment, "Article has been marked as lacking notability for almost 2 years. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss it. Seems to be just one random translation of the Quran, with no particular notability."
Indeed.
And Islamic claims of religious significance to the Temple Mount are invalid and illegitimate. They are based on an event that never could have happened.
In a recent article published by MEMRI, Nihad Awad of the Council of American-Islamic Relations asserted that Muslims were in North America long before Columbus [transcript here, video here - may require free registration]. School textbooks and instructors make the same claim. Not long ago a young woman who attends a local junior college informed me that her history professor said Muslims were in America long before the Europeans.
Where does such misinformation come from? What is the source of this particular aspect of revisionist history?
A group identified as The Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), with the assistance of Arab World and Islamic Resources (AWAIR), published a manual in 1998, revised in 2002, called the Arab World Studies Notebook. The Notebook, 540 pages in length in a loose-leaf three ring binder, was ostensibly published as a resource for educators in providing instruction in Arab culture. But the Notebook goes far beyond simply discussing Arab culture; it covers many aspects of Islam as a religion. For example, there is a section on Islam 101 and the Holy Prophet, the Qur'an, Hadith, Ramadan, the Hajj pilgrimage, and so forth. The Notebook contains suggested lesson plans for each topic, classroom activities, reproducible worksheets for students, and suggested additional resources for each area of study. In short, the Notebook is an educator's dream come true; all the work has been done. How convenient for teachers, and how noble for MPEC to provide such a quality instructional aid!
After publication of the Notebook, MPEC hosted "educational seminars" on Islam and Arab Studies throughout the USA to help school instructors and educators better understand Arab culture and Islam to prepare them to teach these subjects in classrooms. Teachers were provided either free or significantly reduced price copies of the Notebook. MPEC even pitched the Notebook directly to school boards and lobbied to have it adopted into the regular curriculum of school districts throughout the nation. According to some sources, over 20,000 copies of the Workbook found their way into the hands of educators and are being used today for instruction in both history and Arab cultural studies.
Interestingly enough, the Notebook has a section which discusses the issue of Muslims in America, before the arrival of Christopher Columbus!
In a section titled "Early Muslim Exploration Wordwide: Evidence of Muslims in the New World Before Columbus" we find wild and unsubstantiated claims such as this:
Columbus was well aware of the Manding presence and that the West African Muslims had not only spread throughout the Carribean, Central and South America, but that they had reached Canada and were trading and intermarrying with the eastern woodland Iroquios and Algonquin chiefs with names like Abdul-Rahim and Badallah Ibn Malik.
Audrey Shabbas, the author of the Notebook, has been called out by historians and other educators for her careless disregard for history. Peter DiGangi, director of the Algonquin National Secretariat, called the claims of Shabbas "outlandish" and said nothing in the tribe's oral or written tradition supports such a claim. There is no record anywhere of Algonquin tribal chiefs with names such as Abdul-Rahim or Badallah Ibn Malik. It is as if Shabbas created this bit of revisionist history completely out of thin air. It has no basis in historical fact. After learning of this gross distortion of history, DiGangi attempted for six months to contact Shabbas to have her remove this inaccurate material from the Notebook. Shabbas was unresponsive to his inquiries. When finally contacted, Shabbas said she would "give careful and thoughtful attention" to the matter. Yet as of today there has been no retraction of the inaccurate material.
Sandra Stotsky, former director of a professional development institute for teachers at Harvard, and a former associate commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education, notes that Shabbas has admitted to "deliberately favoring the Arab point of view." She describes the Notebook as "propaganda." Stotsky has written extensively about the campaign to rewrite history by groups pushing a pro-Islamic agenda. In an article written for George Mason University's History Network, Stotsky is highly critical of the Workbook and states, "After September 11, it is clearly urgent to teach K-12 students about Islamic history and culture. It is also critical for their teachers to have suitable instructional materials that do not inadvertently promote some person's or group's religious or political agends."
In the video clip below, Stotsky discusses the influence of revisionist history regarding Islam in our schools. She also discussed the Arab World Studies Notebook.
In another article for the History News Network, intern Rebecca Fachner discusses the origins of the idea that Muslims were here long before Columbus. Fachner notes in a report that the authors of the Notebook "simply created an Indian story to suit the purposes of the advocacy group, and published it in a school text manual as fact." She goes on to say that it appears Shabbas and others were simply trying to gain acceptance for Arabs, further integrating them into American culture by making them 'native.' While attempts to gain acceptance of Arabs into American culture is certainly an honorable endeavor, fabricating history to make such integration seem natural is both intellectually dishonest and outright deceptive.
The next time you hear a Muslim or one of their spokespersons make the outlandish claim of Muslims being here before Columbus, ask a simple question. Where is your evidence?
Let's say you wanted to read a historical biography of George Washington. You have two choices before you:
1. A book written by John Adams, Washington's successor who lived during the time and was an eyewitness to what Washington did.
2. A book I wrote in the 21st century about Washington, even though I have no benefit of first hand knowledge or eyewitness accounts.
Which would you choose?
The question is almost rhetorical. There is only one answer.
Yet many reject the earliest biography of Muhammad's life, written a mere 130 years after his death, in favor of much later biographies which cast Muhammad in a completely different light. Many histories have been written about Muhammad's life, but to the critical historian, the earliest is considered the most authoritative, simply because there has been less time for legend to creep into the historical narrative.
Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (aka Ibn Ishaq), who died in 767AD, wrote the earliest biography of Muhammad. Other renowned biographers include Al Tabari (900s), Ibn Kathir (1300s) and Martin Lings (1900s). Whose is most authentic and authoritative?
I bring this up because many are refusing to acknowledge the historical source of the current conflict. Ibn Ishaq narrates several incidents where those who mocked or defamed Muhammad were slaughtered with Muhammad's full approval - examples provided below. Others however choose to view Muhammad in a more favorable light, albeit historically less authoritative, by making reference to Muhammad as told by much later historians. I tried to make this point earlier on someones FB wall and was rebuffed with "As for historians' views of Muhammad, they don't all agree, and they're not (or mostly not) one-sided to either extreme."
THE ROOTS OF ISLAMIC RAGE CURRENTLY
Muhammad had a way of dealing with those who insulted or mocked him.
A group of Jewish rabbis laughed and scoffed at Islam and the Muslims. Muhammad ordered them ejected from the mosque, whereupon some were dragged from the mosque by the hair on their heads and given a severe beating.
Muhammad ordered the killing of two girls, Fartana and her friend, for singing songs of a satirical nature about him.
Another young girl named Sara was mercilessly trampled to her death by a mounted soldier dispatched by Muhammad after she insulted him.
A woman named Asma bint Marwan was brutally murdered with Muhammad’s full knowledge, again for writing poetry deriding Muhammad. Muhammad solicited from among his men for someone to kill her, and one of his men volunteered. When told of the murder the following morning, Muhammad said “two goats will not butt their heads over her death.” This woman left five sons as orphans. According to other accounts of this same incident, the soldier who killed Asma first removed a suckling infant from her breast before plunging his sword into her.
Muhammad gave thanks to Allah when the head of one Abu Jahl was delivered to him. Abu Jahl’s crime was making a mockery of Ibn Mas’ud, one of Muhammad’s followers.
Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf composed poetry of an insulting nature against Muslim women. For this deed, Muhammad solicited from among his men volunteers to kill Ka’b. They lured Ka’b into the night for a friendly discussion, and at a suitable place killed him. Ibn Warraq adds that Ka’b’s head was delivered to Muhammad who praised their good works in the cause of God.
These are but a sample of the actions of Muhammad, recorded in history, which Muslims are still following today any time they feel their prophet has been slandered or mocked.
We can only understand current events by understanding accurate history, in this case Islamic history.
Not long ago I was standing with some friends outside a mosque, handing out literature to Muslims exiting from their Friday service. Things were going well when suddenly a large man came out from the mosque and encountered one of my friends, an older gentleman. The Muslim man said, "You think your God is the right one! I have a challenge for you!," his voice growing louder with each sentence. "This week I challenge you to pray to your God, and I will pray to my God. We both will ask our God to strike dead the one who worships the false God. You meet me here next week at the same time to see whose God is God, if you're still alive!"
My friend was quite taken aback. He did not quite know how to respond. He thought about it for a few minutes and finally agreed they would meet the following Friday at the same time in front of the mosque.
This is a form of the practice known as Mubahala and finds its authority from the Qur'an in Sura 3:61 which says, "But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, and our people and your people, then let us be earnest in prayer and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."
First, notice a distinct difference here between Islam and Christianity. While the Qur'an, spoken by Muhammad to his people, calls on Muslims to curse Christians, Jesus called on Christians to bless all people, including Muslims, and even to bless those who curse us (Luke 6:28).
Second, note that this practice is not an invention of Islam. It goes all the way back well over 3,000 years to the duel on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18: 17-46). Muslims must be careful who they challenge to a duel. Though we wish no harm on them, you don't mess with the God of the Bible. When challenged, to prove "whose God is God" He eliminated the 450 prophets of Baal along with the 400 prophets of Asherah and sent a strong message. Muslims dare not challenge God this way today or be prepared to face the consequences.
So how did the story end for my friend? He showed up the following Friday but the Muslim man did not. I don't know why. Perhaps God accepted his challenge; perhaps he was just embarrassed that his god was shown to be pitiful and powerless.
But other Muslims have challenged Christians and wish they had not. For such an account, read the story of David Wood being challenged to a Mubahala here.
The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus - VideoBookIt has been called "the greatest story ever told." Now the central message of the Bible is brought to life in this eleven-hour online Bible study. This self-paced course has been adapted from the popular award-winning DVD series, The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus.
Your teacher will take these individual elements and chronologically tie them together into one universal drama. Whether you have significant Bible knowledge or have never read "the Book," this online series is for you.
An article recently appeared in an Israeli news source concerning the pope’s new found pact with Islam. This article noted that “In 2008, the Vatican promoted “Love of God, Love of Neighbor,” the first three-day forum with Islamic leaders.” Sadly, this is not an endeavor limited to the Catholic church. Others, including evangelicals, have been deceived by this movement.
Love of God and love of neighbor are the central themes around which 138 Islamic scholars wrote a lengthy letter and distributed it to the most prominent Christian leaders world wide. The letter is known as the “Common Word” letter. It is very deceptive and must be understood for what it is – an invitation to Islam.
BACKGROUND
In October 2007, 138 Islamic scholars from multiple sects issued a carefully worded letter to Christian leaders. The letter received a significant amount of media attention: The New York Times printed the letter in its entirety on a full-page advertisement format. Fox News ran a story which can be seen here. The full text of the letter can be read here. An entire website has been devoted to the topic.
In essence, the letter purports to be an invitation for Christian and Muslims to ‘come together’ and focus on the common bonds of the two faiths: Love of God and love of neighbor. In reality though, the letter is much more sinister.
THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The verse from the Quran which forms the basis of the letter is Sura 3:64, which says, “Say: O People of the Book. Come to a common word between us and you; that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and none shall take others as Lords besides God..”
According to Islamic theology, the proper way to interpret the true meaning of any verse in the Quran is to refer to the ‘occasion of revelation.’ In other words, the real meaning of any verse can only be discerned by understanding the situation in which Muhammad found himself when that particular verse of the Quran was given to him (or invented by him!).
Sura 3:64 was revealed to (or invented by) Muhammad when he wrote a letter to Heraclius, emperor of the Byzantine Empire from 610 to 641 AD. We find the account detailed in the hadith of Sahih Muslim, book 19 (Kitab al-Jihad Wa’l-Siyar), chapter 728, hadith number 4380, which states:
From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hiraql, the Emperor of the Romans. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. After this, I extend to you the invitation to accept Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be safe. Accept Islam, God will give you double the reward. And if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects.” O People of the Book, come to the word that is common between us that we should worship none other than Allah, should not ascribe any partner to Him and some of us should not take their fellows as Lords other than Allah. If they turn away, you should say that we testify to our being Muslims…
Take note: Sura 3:64 is tied directly to an invitation to Heraclius to accept Islam, and if he does so he will be safe. Conversely, if he does not accept the invitation, Muhammad’s army is free to force the issue by way of violence (note, this hadith is recorded in the book of Jihad). Historically then, the verse is tied directly to an invitation to embrace Islam or face the battles of jihad! This is how Muslims world wide interpret this verse.
We find the same tradition recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 4, book 52 (the book of Jihad), hadith number 191:
“In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Heraculius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship. None but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..
The intent and meaning of this verse is clearly an invitation to Islam. Yet sadly, many Christian leaders, including the pope and prominent evangelical Christian leaders accepted the letter and added their signature of endorsement!
ANALYSIS
I will not offer an extensive analysis here, for much has already been written on the matter. I personally collaborated, along with several others, in forming a critical analysis which was subsequently published by Dr. Mark Durie, and which can be read here.
In summary, Dr. Durie says of the letter:
-
The letter presupposes that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
-
It has the appearance of being an exercise in da‘wa or Islamic proselytism.
-
The letter uses a ‘bait and switch’ tactic whereby Christians are invited to agree with Muslims on loving God and loving one’s neighbour, but this is exchanged by the end of the letter for an invitation to agree on tawhid, the Islamic understanding of the unity of Allah. In effect, Christians are being asked to accept Islamic monotheism as the foundation for interfaith dialogue and peaceful relationships.
-
However Islamic monotheism explicitly denies the incarnation, and is incompatible with other aspects of Christian belief.
-
This letter appears to be an attempt to Islamicize Christian-Muslim dialogue. True dialogue can only proceed by respecting the integrity of the other’s position.
-
The letter misleadingly offers the Islamic Jesus (Isa) as evidence of Muslims’ good will towards Christians.
-
The letter overlooks calls in the Qur’an to fight Christians, and the reality of human rights abuses against Christians in so many Muslim countries.
-
The discussion of ‘love thy neighbour’ is particularly weak. In Islam, calls to do good for one’s neighbour are traditionally taken to refer to one’s Muslim neighbour only.
-
The letter makes no reference to God’s love for humankind as a whole.
-
Crucial verses are cited without acknowledging traditional anti-Christian interpretations. For example:
-
the ‘common word’ theme verse of the letter (Sura 3:64) is associated with a declaration of war against the Byzantines, and is part of an anti-Christian polemic in the Qur’an,
-
the Sura Al-Fatihah is presented as the ‘greatest chapter’ in the Qur’an, but this chapter denounces Christians as those who have been ‘led astray’,
-
verses which are cited as ones which speak well of Christians (Sura 3:113-115) are traditionally understood to refer to converts to Islam,
-
the important Sura 112 – the Islamic Shema – is cited only in part, omitting the verses which denounce Trinitarian faith.
-
- The letter’s warnings of conflict if the invitation is not accepted could be read as a threat. This is unfortunate. Christians should be wary of accepting the presuppositions behind these warnings.
I normally stay away from politics on this website, since I risk running afoul of the IRS for our 501(c)(3) exemption. But his speech yesterday at the White House, in honor of Ramadan, cannot go unchallenged. I have written about this topic before, as have others. I am reposting here the comments by Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch about Obama's gross mischaracterization of the "first Iftar dinner" hosted by Thomas Jefferson. No such dinner ever took place in honor of Ramadan. The article below courtesy of Jihad Watch:
"The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan --- making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago." -- Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the "Annual Iftar Dinner" at the White House
Really? Is that what happened? Was there a "first known iftar at the White House" given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the "first Muslim ambassador to the United States"? That's what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at the 2010 "Annual Iftar Dinner," knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all to see.
More Articles...
- 20/20 Islam Questions and Answers
- Christians Arrested in Dearborn
- Canada-Welfare Benefits for Multiple Wives
- UK-Social Benefits for Multiple Wives
- Islam In The Classroom
- Jos violence distorted in media
- Over 500 Dead in Jos, Nigeria Clash
- Restore the Caliphate?
- Morocco Expels Christian Workers
- Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam