Ijaz Ahmad is a Muslim blogger wi
th whom I have had some level of interaction. He runs a website called “Calling Christians.” It is unfortunate that Ijaz has developed a peculiar habit of mishearing, or misreading, things that I say and write. It was no different in his review of my debate in London from last month with Dr. Shabir Ally on Tawhid vs. the Trinity. Almost none of his comments pertaining to the argumentation I presented in the debate fairly represented what I had said. I have been quite busy over the last month, and so have not had as much opportunity as I would have liked to comment on the debate more fully. Here, I am going to offer a rebuttal to Ijaz’s critique of my opening statement from the debate.
Ijaz briefly summarises Shabir’s opening statement, curiously omitting any mention of the numerous problems with Shabir’s Biblical argumentation (such as his misuse of Greek grammar in regards to John 1:1). He then begins his critique of my opening statement:
He began by defining the doctrine of the Trinity was. This is something I strongly agree with, opening a debate by delimiting the scope of the discussion. As a proponent of socratic thinking, this was a pleasant and welcomed feature of his presentation. As previously mentioned, it was expected that Jonathan would base his arguments about the nature of God by mainly appealing to the Bible. He opened by declaring that the Bible was a wholly Trinitarian text (timestamp in video, he says, “The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.”), which unfortunately for him, was pre-empted by Dr. Shabir who demonstrated it was not, thus Jonathan’s first argument was already weakened by Dr. Shabir. Jonathan then presented three other arguments which he felt negated the validity of the doctrine of Tawhid.
The first point to note here is that I never stated that “the Bible is a wholly Trinitarian text”. It is my view that one can demonstrate a multiplicity of divine persons from both the Old and New Testaments, while the doctrine of the Trinity reaches its fullest expression in the New Testament where we read of the incarnation of the Son of God. Ijaz was thus not far off my position, but he is incorrect to claim that this statement had been pre-empted by Shabir, since it is simply not what I said in my opening statement. What I said is that “the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.” The “Gospel” is not synonymous with “the Bible.” Ijaz claims that this was my “first argument”, but it was not an argument at all. It was a part of my introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity, before I got to my three-tiered argument.
Ijaz goes on to list the three main arguments I presented in the debate:
- Tawhid has its own internal problems.
- The disciples were Trinitarian.
- The Injeel is Trinitarian.
He then represents my first argument as follows:
Of his first argument, he stated:
P1 – If Tawhid is true, it must be consistent.
P2 – Tawhid is not consistent.
C – Therefore Tawhid must not be true.
That’s not quite what I said. My first premise was that, from a Muslim perspective, “If Tawhid is true, it must be consistent with the Qur’an.” My second premise was that Tawhid is not consistent with the Qur’an.
Ijaz goes on:
“Technically, this (form of argument) is referred to as Modus Tollens. The problem here, is that you have to prove the premises before you can qualify and validate your conclusion which is expected to be a tautology.”
Yes, this is a Modus Tollens argument. I don’t know why Ijaz seems to think that the need to demonstrate the truth of the premises in order to support the conclusion is a problem with this manner of argumentation. Anyway, he goes on:
“In attempting to do this, Jonathan disappointed me greatly. All he did was refer (timestamp in video, he says “Those who saw Shabir’s debate with Nabeel Qureishi would’ve been exposed to the problems with reconciling the eternality of the Qur’an with the doctrine of Tawhid.”) to the argument that Nabeel used regarding the Qur’an being the eternal word of Allah, yet physical and created. I was disappointed because this is an argument copied from Jay Smith, which Samuel Green tried to use on me in my debate with him, which Nabeel later picked up and tried to use against Dr. Shabir. The problem here is that Dr. Shabir already addressed this argument, and so have I. Jonathan merely repeated Nabeel’s poor argument. He did not try to revamp the argument, he did not add anything to the argument, he did not articulate it differently, he did not try to incorporate Dr. Shabir’s response to Nabeel into the argument. He quite literally just repeated the argument, which was already responded to. Naturally, I would expect, that if he did his homework and decided to use an argument which was already refuted, that he’d adjust the argument in some way. He didn’t do that. He presented nothing new. It was at that point I wondered why he even offered to debate the same topic if he was merely going to repeat the same points from the previous debate of the same topic by offering nothing new.”
The only problem is that I did not make this argument in my opening statement at all. I noted that Nabeel had made this argument in his debate with Shabir, and that I was going to be making a different argument instead. I do happen to think that this argument has something going for it, but I think the argument I did present in the debate is stronger.
He goes on:
“At this point, he presented another argument, namely that there are other creators other than Allah. He did not seem to understand that what he presented was the fallacy of false equivalency, wherein the Qur’an mentioned numerous times that there were agents of God who had abilities attained by the “leave/ permission of Allah”, which are temporal and not absolute. Logically, this would mean their abilities are not inherent and eternal, but appropriated by God, thus his argument was non-sequitur from the get go. I firmly believe that he did not critically consider this argument beyond a cursory copy and paste from Answering Islam’s website. Ironically, he attempted to present this argument in syllogistic form, but the argument was inherently non-sequitur due to its format including the fallacy of false equivalency. How he did not realise this, was impossible to understand, if he is using logic, he should know what fallacies are and how they inhibit his premises. What’s troubling is that in the same sentence he declares that Allah has no partners, then states in the same breath that the Holy Spirit shares in the divinity of God. That’s a contradiction, so either it is his argument and conclusions were wrong, or he forced a false conclusion which he himself did not notice.”
Briefly, the argument I presented in the debate is as follows: According to various texts in the Qur’an (e.g. Surah 2:28; 22:6), Allah is the creator of life. Surah 15:23 tells us,
“It is indeed We, and only We, who give life and bring death, and We are the ultimate inheritor.”
Surah 2:228 tells us that Allah is the one who creates life in the womb.
We also read that Allah creates life by breathing his spirit.
Surah 21:91:
“And (remember) her who protected her private part. So, We blew in her through Our Spirit, and made her and her son a sign for all the worlds.”
Surah 66:12:
“And Maryam, daughter of ‘Imran who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her Our Spirit, and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and His books, and she was one of the devout.”
Surah 15:28-29 also tells us about the creation of Adam:
“Recall when your Lord said to the angels, “I am going to create a human being from a ringing clay made of decayed mud. When I form him perfect, and blow in him of My spirit, then you must fall down before him in prostration.”
Surah 19:16-21 narrates the story of Allah’s Spirit appearing before Mary in the form of a perfect human being to announce the birth of Jesus and to tell her that he is going to give her a boy. This indicates that the Spirit is personal. Here is the text:
“And mention in the Book (the story of) Maryam, when she secluded herself from her people to a place towards East. Then she used a barrier to hide herself from them. Then We sent to her Our Spirit, and he took before her the form of a perfect human being. She said, “I seek refuge with the All Merciful (Allah) against you, if you are God-fearing.” He said “I am but a message-bearer of your Lord (sent) to give you a boy, purified.” She said, “How shall I have a boy while no human has ever touched me, nor have I ever been unchaste? He said, “So it is; your Lord said, ‘It is easy for Me, and (We will do this) so that We make it a sign for people and a mercy from Us, and this is a matter already destined.”
The Arabic word for “give” (Wahaba) means to give/grant/bestow/present etc.
Thus, the Holy Spirit also appears to have been the agent that created life in Mary’s womb and also brought life to Adam. In syllogistic form, I presented my argument as follows:
Premise 1: The Holy Spirit was who created life in Mary’s womb and brought Adam to life.
Premise 2: Allah also created life in Mary’s womb and brought Adam to life.
Premise 3: Therefore, one of three things is true: either the Holy Spirit is identical with Allah, or Allah has a separate co-creator, or one divine God creates life, and the Holy Spirit shares in that divinity.
Premise 4: Now of course, those first two options are not acceptable. The Spirit cannot be identical to Allah, since he describes himself as a message-bearer and also appears to be able to assume human form. Nor can the Spirit be a separate co-creator, since the Qur’an also affirms that God has no partners (Surah 4:116).
Conclusion: Therefore, the only option left is that the Holy Spirit shares in the Divinity, because only God creates.
I then showed that Surah 58:22 suggests that the Spirit has divine characteristics such as omnipresence:
“[Believers] are such that Allah has inscribed faith on their hearts, and has strengthened them with a spirit from Him.”
This text uses the same verb “to strengthen” as 2:87 and 5:110, in reference to the Spirit strengthening Jesus. If the Spirit strengthens all believers everywhere, I argued, does that not at least suggest that the Spirit is omnipresent and omnipotent – being present everywhere and being all powerful? Those are attributes that are thought to be uniquely associated with the divine. This portion of my argument was never addressed by Shabir in the debate.
Now, as to Ijaz’s comments on my argument, I am quite aware of the Qur’an speaking of agents of God who had abilities attained by the “leave/permission of Allah” which are temporal in nature — such as Jesus’ ability to perform miracles for instance. This is the point raised by Shabir in his rebuttal, which is a response that I had anticipated to be his most likely defence. In response, I had cited Surah 32:6-9:
“That One is the All-knower of the Unseen and the seen, the All-Mighty, the Very-Merciful, who made well whatever He created, and started the creation of man from clay. Then He made his progeny from a drop of semen, from despised water. Then He gave him a proportioned shape, and breathed into him of His spirit. And He granted you the (power of) hearing and the eyes and the hearts. Little you give thanks.”
Breathing of the divine Spirit thus appears to be the common mechanism by which Allah creates life. It is by breathing the divine Spirit that, according to Surah 66:12, Allah created life in Mary’s womb — and yet we know from Surah 19 that this same divine Spirit is a personal entity. Shabir accused me at this point of having misread the text of Surah 32, since verse 4 stresses that Allah alone is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all contained therein. But this was precisely my point. If Allah does not have a separate co-creator, then the Spirit must share in the divinity with Allah — in a similar way to the manner in which Christians believe that Yahweh alone is the creator of the heavens and the earth, whereas the Son and Spirit share in the divinity with the Father, three persons making up one divine being. I did not have time to do this in the debate, but let me at this time support my interpretation of Surah 32 by citing a respected Quranic commentator. Maulana Muhammad Ali notes in his comments on Surah 32:9 that,
“This verse shows that the spirit of God is breathed into every man. This points to a mystical relation between human nature and Divine nature. The word ruh does not here mean the animal soul, because the animal soul is common to man and the animal kingdom. It is something that distinguishes man from the animal world. It is due to the spirit Divine that he rules creation and its due to the same Divine spirit in him that he receives a new life after death – a life which he lives in God and with God – the meeting with God or liqa Allah, as it is called in v. 10.”
Continuing our analysis of Ijaz’s review, Ijaz goes on:
His second argument was that the disciples of Jesus were Trinitarian. Interestingly, I had a debate on this topic earlier in the year and demonstrated that according to the proto-orthodox Christian tradition, the disciples were definitely not Trinitarian. At this point he introduced a very strange argument.
P1 – If the Disciples of Jesus were Trinitarian then the Islamic concept of God is false.
P2 – The Disciples of Christ were Trinitarian.
C – Therefore the Islamic concept of God is false.
Bizarrely, Ijaz goes on to accuse me of making a circular argument:
“Jonathan cannot make such an argument and believe that he is arguing logically. This is known as the fallacy of circular reasoning.”
There is no way in which the above argument can possibly be construed as circular. The Qur’an makes a prediction about what we should expect to find (namely, that the disciples believed Islamic doctrines such as Tawhid). I then set out to falsify this prediction, in my judgement successfully. Nothing circular about it. It seems to me that Ijaz needs to study some logic.
Ijaz continues:
“What is worse was his attempt at drawing out the logical routes. He presumed that Dr. Shabir could refute his argument in one of two ways, firstly that the disciples were later misled or secondly, that the disciples were overcome (by other groups). Jonathan posited that the second option was impossible as the Qur’an says they were victors. The problem therein with his reasoning is that the Qur’an does not say in what way they were victors. He assumes that it has to be in the promulgation of their beliefs, which the Qur’an does not state itself.
But the Qur’an does specify that Allah would “place those who follow [Jesus] above those who disbelieve up to the Day of Resurrection.” This strongly suggests a continuity of dominance, right from day one. It was the Christianity represented by Paul and the other apostles that achieved dominance. Furthermore, several early highly respected Quranic commentators were led to praise the apostle Paul as a direct result of these verses, as I pointed out in my first rebuttal. Among them are ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurturbi, and ibn Ishaq. Since all of those respected commentators affirm my interpretation of these verses, I think that puts me in good company.
Ijaz goes on:
“It is alleged that the early Christians were persecuted and the religion did not become “accepted” until Constantine’s conversion. According to Jonathan’s appeal to the Qur’an, he alleged that the Qur’an mentioned the disciples of Christ were victorious. Yet the Church was not accepted or mainstream until 300 years after them, so in what way were the disciples victorious according to his reading of the Qur’an?”
I would disagree with this historical point, although it would take a while to demonstrate. Perhaps this is a topic for a future debate. I refer interested readers to The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Michael Kruger and Andreas Kostenberger, for a review of this view popularised by Walter Bauer and, more recently, Bart Ehrman.
Ijaz goes on to say,
“At this point, he began to appeal to the New Testament as a historical witness, but for those of you familiar with Dr. Shabir’s works and my own, we already know that the New Testament en toto is not historically viable nor accurate. I have explicitly explained this in great detail in my debate with Steven on the very topic of the beliefs of the disciples using palaeography, papyrology, form criticism, textual criticism and historical criticism.”
My appeals to the New Testament, however, were all prefaced with argumentation as to why we should take the documents I cited (namely, the non-disputed works of Paul, the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John) seriously. Ijaz did not interact with the material I presented (nor really did Shabir). I have argued extensively elsewhere for the general historical credibility of the New Testament, and so I need not reiterate myself here.
Ijaz continues,
“He began to close his argument by referring to hadith criticism’s use of the isnad or chain of transmission. Unfortunately, he merely referred to the use of the chain of transmission by Islamic scholarship, what he utterly failed to do was qualify the authority of these alleged chains of transmission by applying the methods of hadith criticism to the chains themselves. I myself did this in my debate with Steven, in fact this was one of the arguments I researched in great detail and whose historicity the early Church itself disputed. Thus, by both Christian historical traditions and the methodology of hadith criticism, the chains of transmission in regard to John used by Jonathan are known to have been falsified and are historically inaccurate. I do not believe that Jonathan spent more than a few minutes constructing this argument, nor do I believe he consulted any major works of Patristic criticism, especially due to the reason his sole academic source seemed to be Richard Bauckham, whom I also referenced in my debate. I do believe he rushed through this portion of his opening statement, and I do not believe he himself knew in any great detail the methodologies of hadith criticism, and so his appeal to this Christian isnad was mere buzz word dropping.”
I did not apply methods of hadith criticisms to the chains themselves largely due to the time constraints in my opening statement, and also because I was not challenged on it throughout the debate. If Ijaz really wants to do a debate with me on whether the gospels or the Sahih ahadith are better representatives of the sayings and deeds of Jesus and Muhammad respectively, I would be happy to do that.
Ijaz offered no comment on the third argument I presented in the debate, namely that the Injeel (i.e. the gospel) is Trinitarian and that the Injeel is affirmed by the Qur’an.
Ijaz finishes his review by claiming that I did not put much thought into my opening statement, that I did not present any new material, and that I did not present the Trinity. I would disagree with him strongly on all three of those points. As time permits, I will put out some further reviews of the argumentation covered in the debate.
A Response to Ijaz Ahmad’s Review of My Debate With Shabir Ally
IslamIjaz Ahmad is a Muslim blogger wi
th whom I have had some level of interaction. He runs a website called “Calling Christians.” It is unfortunate that Ijaz has developed a peculiar habit of mishearing, or misreading, things that I say and write. It was no different in his review of my debate in London from last month with Dr. Shabir Ally on Tawhid vs. the Trinity. Almost none of his comments pertaining to the argumentation I presented in the debate fairly represented what I had said. I have been quite busy over the last month, and so have not had as much opportunity as I would have liked to comment on the debate more fully. Here, I am going to offer a rebuttal to Ijaz’s critique of my opening statement from the debate.
Ijaz briefly summarises Shabir’s opening statement, curiously omitting any mention of the numerous problems with Shabir’s Biblical argumentation (such as his misuse of Greek grammar in regards to John 1:1). He then begins his critique of my opening statement:
The first point to note here is that I never stated that “the Bible is a wholly Trinitarian text”. It is my view that one can demonstrate a multiplicity of divine persons from both the Old and New Testaments, while the doctrine of the Trinity reaches its fullest expression in the New Testament where we read of the incarnation of the Son of God. Ijaz was thus not far off my position, but he is incorrect to claim that this statement had been pre-empted by Shabir, since it is simply not what I said in my opening statement. What I said is that “the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.” The “Gospel” is not synonymous with “the Bible.” Ijaz claims that this was my “first argument”, but it was not an argument at all. It was a part of my introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity, before I got to my three-tiered argument.
Ijaz goes on to list the three main arguments I presented in the debate:
He then represents my first argument as follows:
That’s not quite what I said. My first premise was that, from a Muslim perspective, “If Tawhid is true, it must be consistent with the Qur’an.” My second premise was that Tawhid is not consistent with the Qur’an.
Ijaz goes on:
Yes, this is a Modus Tollens argument. I don’t know why Ijaz seems to think that the need to demonstrate the truth of the premises in order to support the conclusion is a problem with this manner of argumentation. Anyway, he goes on:
The only problem is that I did not make this argument in my opening statement at all. I noted that Nabeel had made this argument in his debate with Shabir, and that I was going to be making a different argument instead. I do happen to think that this argument has something going for it, but I think the argument I did present in the debate is stronger.
He goes on:
Briefly, the argument I presented in the debate is as follows: According to various texts in the Qur’an (e.g. Surah 2:28; 22:6), Allah is the creator of life. Surah 15:23 tells us,
Surah 2:228 tells us that Allah is the one who creates life in the womb.
We also read that Allah creates life by breathing his spirit.
Surah 21:91:
Surah 66:12:
Surah 15:28-29 also tells us about the creation of Adam:
Surah 19:16-21 narrates the story of Allah’s Spirit appearing before Mary in the form of a perfect human being to announce the birth of Jesus and to tell her that he is going to give her a boy. This indicates that the Spirit is personal. Here is the text:
The Arabic word for “give” (Wahaba) means to give/grant/bestow/present etc.
Thus, the Holy Spirit also appears to have been the agent that created life in Mary’s womb and also brought life to Adam. In syllogistic form, I presented my argument as follows:
Premise 1: The Holy Spirit was who created life in Mary’s womb and brought Adam to life.
Premise 2: Allah also created life in Mary’s womb and brought Adam to life.
Premise 3: Therefore, one of three things is true: either the Holy Spirit is identical with Allah, or Allah has a separate co-creator, or one divine God creates life, and the Holy Spirit shares in that divinity.
Premise 4: Now of course, those first two options are not acceptable. The Spirit cannot be identical to Allah, since he describes himself as a message-bearer and also appears to be able to assume human form. Nor can the Spirit be a separate co-creator, since the Qur’an also affirms that God has no partners (Surah 4:116).
Conclusion: Therefore, the only option left is that the Holy Spirit shares in the Divinity, because only God creates.
I then showed that Surah 58:22 suggests that the Spirit has divine characteristics such as omnipresence:
This text uses the same verb “to strengthen” as 2:87 and 5:110, in reference to the Spirit strengthening Jesus. If the Spirit strengthens all believers everywhere, I argued, does that not at least suggest that the Spirit is omnipresent and omnipotent – being present everywhere and being all powerful? Those are attributes that are thought to be uniquely associated with the divine. This portion of my argument was never addressed by Shabir in the debate.
Now, as to Ijaz’s comments on my argument, I am quite aware of the Qur’an speaking of agents of God who had abilities attained by the “leave/permission of Allah” which are temporal in nature — such as Jesus’ ability to perform miracles for instance. This is the point raised by Shabir in his rebuttal, which is a response that I had anticipated to be his most likely defence. In response, I had cited Surah 32:6-9:
Breathing of the divine Spirit thus appears to be the common mechanism by which Allah creates life. It is by breathing the divine Spirit that, according to Surah 66:12, Allah created life in Mary’s womb — and yet we know from Surah 19 that this same divine Spirit is a personal entity. Shabir accused me at this point of having misread the text of Surah 32, since verse 4 stresses that Allah alone is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all contained therein. But this was precisely my point. If Allah does not have a separate co-creator, then the Spirit must share in the divinity with Allah — in a similar way to the manner in which Christians believe that Yahweh alone is the creator of the heavens and the earth, whereas the Son and Spirit share in the divinity with the Father, three persons making up one divine being. I did not have time to do this in the debate, but let me at this time support my interpretation of Surah 32 by citing a respected Quranic commentator. Maulana Muhammad Ali notes in his comments on Surah 32:9 that,
Continuing our analysis of Ijaz’s review, Ijaz goes on:
Bizarrely, Ijaz goes on to accuse me of making a circular argument:
There is no way in which the above argument can possibly be construed as circular. The Qur’an makes a prediction about what we should expect to find (namely, that the disciples believed Islamic doctrines such as Tawhid). I then set out to falsify this prediction, in my judgement successfully. Nothing circular about it. It seems to me that Ijaz needs to study some logic.
Ijaz continues:
But the Qur’an does specify that Allah would “place those who follow [Jesus] above those who disbelieve up to the Day of Resurrection.” This strongly suggests a continuity of dominance, right from day one. It was the Christianity represented by Paul and the other apostles that achieved dominance. Furthermore, several early highly respected Quranic commentators were led to praise the apostle Paul as a direct result of these verses, as I pointed out in my first rebuttal. Among them are ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurturbi, and ibn Ishaq. Since all of those respected commentators affirm my interpretation of these verses, I think that puts me in good company.
Ijaz goes on:
I would disagree with this historical point, although it would take a while to demonstrate. Perhaps this is a topic for a future debate. I refer interested readers to The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Michael Kruger and Andreas Kostenberger, for a review of this view popularised by Walter Bauer and, more recently, Bart Ehrman.
Ijaz goes on to say,
My appeals to the New Testament, however, were all prefaced with argumentation as to why we should take the documents I cited (namely, the non-disputed works of Paul, the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John) seriously. Ijaz did not interact with the material I presented (nor really did Shabir). I have argued extensively elsewhere for the general historical credibility of the New Testament, and so I need not reiterate myself here.
Ijaz continues,
I did not apply methods of hadith criticisms to the chains themselves largely due to the time constraints in my opening statement, and also because I was not challenged on it throughout the debate. If Ijaz really wants to do a debate with me on whether the gospels or the Sahih ahadith are better representatives of the sayings and deeds of Jesus and Muhammad respectively, I would be happy to do that.
Ijaz offered no comment on the third argument I presented in the debate, namely that the Injeel (i.e. the gospel) is Trinitarian and that the Injeel is affirmed by the Qur’an.
Ijaz finishes his review by claiming that I did not put much thought into my opening statement, that I did not present any new material, and that I did not present the Trinity. I would disagree with him strongly on all three of those points. As time permits, I will put out some further reviews of the argumentation covered in the debate.
Should You Do Your Job or Obey Your Conscience?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsShould Christians ever disobey their government? Some say no. But Kim Davis sides with Martin Luther King and thinks civil disobedience is justified. Ms. Davis is the Rowan County Kentucky clerk who spent five days in jail for refusing to put her name on same sex marriage licenses. Claiming to be a new Christian, Ms. Davis is also a long-time Democrat.
In court last week, Judge David Bunning told Davis: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He said that “if you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
Judge Bunning is absolutely right. This is the kind of chaos that results when people do not respect the law. But I’m not referring to Kim Davis—I’m referring to the United States Supreme Court. As I’ve written before, and the multiple dissents state more eloquently, there is no justification in the Constitution for judicially imposing genderless marriage on every state in the union. Five unelected justices simply imposed their own law on 330 million people.
But does that justify civil disobedience? Where do you draw the line?
Certainly, there is a line somewhere. After all, we laud those behind the Underground Railroad who freed slaves and those who protected Jews in Nazi Germany. While bad marriage laws are obviously not as serious, consider a more equivalent scenario: Suppose the Supreme Court decided to drop the age of consent in every state to twelve years old (a position Ruth Bader Ginsberg supported before she became a Supreme Court Justice). Would you think that Kim Davis should be forced to endorse the marriage of a 75 year-old man who brought a twelve year-old girl into her office? I hope you can see that there is a line and it’s not far from Kim Davis.
Liberals believe in civil disobedience—when it suits their causes. Despite chanting, “Do your job!” outside Kim Davis’s office, liberals were rejoicing when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to violate California law and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2004. They certainly were not chanting “Do your job” outside of Attorney General Eric Holder’s office when he told the states last year to ignore their own laws that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And liberals were not asking a federal judge to throw President Obama in jail when he refused to do his job by defending the Defense of Marriage Act in Court.
So just ten minutes ago liberals believed that defying marriage laws was heroic! Now their blatant double standard is all too obvious—they laud civil disobedience when it’s used to advance the religion of sex and denounce it when it’s used to protect Christian or natural law beliefs.
But on what authority does one defy the government? One man who wanted a same-sex marriage license asked Kim Davis on “what authority” was she not issuing licenses. She cited God.
Yet, the question needs to be asked of both sides. By what authority did Newsom, Holder, Obama and other liberal politicians defy the law? They certainly weren’t citing God or the Creator cited in our Declaration of Independence who gives us unalienable rights. But without an authority beyond man’s law, there is no authority for their actions nor is there any objective standard to ground unalienable rights. Without God, every right claim is merely a human opinion. At least Kim Davis, agree with her or not, is citing an authority beyond herself.
Civil disobedience has rich precedent in the United States. In fact, our country was founded on it largely to secure religious freedom. Civil disobedience also has precedent in the Bible. When Pharaoh ordered Hebrew midwives to murder all Hebrew boys, they disobeyed and even lied to the authorities (Exodus 1). And Daniel and his friends peacefully defied laws that contracted God’s commands. Likewise, when the Jewish authorities told John and Peter to stop telling people the good news that Jesus paid for your sins and rose from the dead, they disobeyed saying that they would obey God rather than men (Acts 4).
Therefore, the principle for Christians is this: civil disobedience is necessary when a government compels you to sin or prevents you from doing something God commands you to do. You don’t disobey the government merely because it permits others to sin—only when it compels you to do so. Kim Davis thinks that line has been crossed.
It’s actually not hard to avoid crossing the line. Both parties can be accommodated as Judge Bunning finally figured out when he released Davis yesterday. In North Carolina, we passed a law to allow people like Kim Davis to opt out of endorsing relationships that violated their religious or moral beliefs. Since other government employees are more than happy to issue licenses, no one is inconvenienced or forced to violate conscience. We do this for far more serious issues than weddings. For example, even during a time of war when we draft people to defend the country, we allow for conscientious objectors to opt out. If we can allow exemptions for government employees involved in protecting the very existence of our nation, we can certainly allow exemptions for government employees involved in weddings!
Will the Kentucky legislature act when it returns in January to pass such a law? Unfortunately, I doubt the activists who are always demanding tolerance will tolerate such reasonableness. It seems that some people just can’t live and let live. They will not rest until all opposition is crushed and everyone is forced to celebrate what they are doing.
If that’s your position, I have a question for you: Why would you want anyone who disagrees with your wedding to have anything to do with it? Go to another clerk, another florist, another photographer. Why force people to violate their conscience when there are so many other people willing to help you and celebrate with you? After all, isn’t this supposed to be a time when “love wins?”
Apparently not. For some liberals “love wins” as long as everyone agrees with them. Those that disagree will not like the kind of “love” some liberals dish out. Are the same people who are chanting “love wins” some of the same people who issued death threats to Kim Davis? It’s certainly wasn’t the Christians.
The truth is Kim Davis and other victims of “tolerance” don’t want a holy war. Davis just doesn’t want her signature on the license. She suggested other government officials sign, and Judge Bunning finally agreed. But a law needs to be passed to prevent future problems.
North Carolina has led the way. It remains to be seen if liberals in Kentucky will accept that way. If their recent history is a guide, I’m afraid they will demand that every knee bow and every tongue confess the dogma of their secular religion.
(This column also appears at Townhall.com) and Stream.org
¿Son las verdades morales un producto de la cultura?
EspañolEn mi nuevo libro, “La Escena de Crimen de Dios: Un Detective de Homicidios Examina Evidencia para un Universo Divinamente Creado”, yo examino ocho trazos de evidencia en el universo mientras pregunto algo simple que usamos en investigaciones: “¿Puedo explicar la evidencia ‘en la habitación’ (del universo natural) mientras me quedo dentro de la habitación?”. Esta es la pregunta que uso en cada escena de muerte para determinar si en verdad es una escena de crimen. Cuando la evidencia “en la habitación” no se puede explicar al permanecer “en la habitación”, tengo que considerar la participación de un intruso. Si la evidencia dentro del universo no puede explicarse al mantenerse “dentro” de la esfera natural del universo, debemos tener en cuenta igualmente la participación de un intruso cósmico. Una pieza de evidencia crítica en el universo es la existencia de morales objetivos que son transcendentes. ¿Podemos nosotros explicar estas verdades mientras nos quedamos “dentro de la habitación”?
Muchos filósofos y pensadores ateos buscan explicar las verdades morales desde “dentro de la habitación” del universo natural. Ellos ofrecen que las sociedades y culturas son la fuente de la moralidad. De acuerdo con este punto de vista (llamado “relativismo moral”), la moralidad varía de cultura a cultura. No hay morales universales que son objetivas ni transcendentes para “todas las personas todo el tiempo.” Los relativistas morales creen que las culturas y los grupos de personas son los que crean sus propios códigos morales en vez de descubrirlos. Los códigos morales son una construcción social diseñada por la mayoría para ayudar a que el grupo mantenga la armonía social y aumenta su capacidad de supervivencia. Pero si el acuerdo cultural determina las verdades morales, varios problemas emergen:
Este enfoque confunde la diversidad cultural con la claridad moral
El relativismo moral reconoce correctamente la diversidad cultural y moral del mundo, pero esta observación falla en falsificar la existencia de morales transcendentes y objetivos. Las culturas pueden diferir en sus creencias acerca de lo que causa la tuberculosis, pero esto no significa que no haya una verdad objetiva acerca de la causa y la naturaleza de la enfermedad. La diversidad de las creencias subjetivas tiene muy poco que ver con la existencia de la verdad objetiva.
Este enfoque falla en identificar qué “cultura” rige qué
Si las verdades morales emergen del consenso de los grupos de personas, ¿qué grupo de personas es el que decide? ¿El tamaño o cuán poderoso es un grupo es lo que decide cuál grupo es calificado para ser la autoridad? El relativismo moral nos niega la habilidad para declarar que un grupo tiene más autoridad que otro, a menos que estemos dispuestos a apelar a una autoridad que transciende todos los grupos.
Este enfoque silencia la critica intercultural
Si las verdades morales son un producto del consenso cultural, ninguna cultura está en una posición para criticar o alabar el comportamiento de otra cultura. El relativismo moral no nos permite decir, “La tortura es objetivamente mala.” Lo mejor que podemos hacer es simplemente decir, “No nos gusta la tortura aquí en nuestra cultura”. Pero ¿cuál es la razón por lo cual le debe importar a alguien lo que pensamos si las verdades morales son relativas en cada cultura? Si la moral es simplemente un producto de la opinión cultural, las proclamaciones acerca de los verdades morales son como declaraciones sobre nuestras preferencias de comida: interesantes, pero en última instancia, no importan.
Este enfoque depende demasiado en el acuerdo
Si los grupos de personas deciden qué es lo que es moralmente correcto o incorrecto, ¿cómo debemos considerar un acto en particular si no hay un acuerdo cultural definitivo? ¿Significa esto que un acto no tiene estatus moral hasta que la mayoría se puede poner de acuerdo es ello? ¿Y qué tan grande tiene que ser la mayoría? Si el relativismo moral es verdad, no podemos hacer una declaración acerca del estatus moral de cualquier acto hasta que hemos llegado a un consenso cultural.
Este enfoque margina a los reformadores morales
Si las verdades morales son decididas por el acuerdo cultural, basadas en las creencias de la mayoría – ¿cómo debemos evaluar aquellos individuos en la minoría? ¿No serían considerados inmorales por definición? Los reformadores morales como Ghandi y Martin Luther King Jr., quienes empezaron sus esfuerzos de reforma moral como individuos defendiendo un punto de vista minoritario, serían impotentes para lograr un cambio si la verdad moral fuera realmente establecida como los relativistas morales proponen. Los Reformadores como éstos apelan hacia las verdades morales que transcienden la opinión de la mayoría cuando argumentan por el cambio. Si la verdad moral empieza en el nivel de la cultura, no hay una autoridad más allá de la sociedad a quien podemos recurrir.
Este enfoque alienta y emplea el comportamiento inmoral
Si los códigos morales son creados sistemáticamente y aceptados por las culturas como un esfuerzo para mantener la armonía social y para aumentar su supervivencia, ¿cómo podremos evitar los actos culturalmente egoístas? Si una actividad en particular aumenta la armonía social y la supervivencia de nuestra cultura, pero logra esto en detrimento de la cultura vecina, ¿hace esto el comportamiento moralmente aceptable? La esclavitud puede aumentar la supervivencia de una cultura en vez de otra – especialmente en vez de la cultura que esta esclavizado. De hecho, un argumento para la continuación de la esclavitud en América giraba alrededor de los beneficios que tuvo para la economía. Los retos para la supervivencia, incluyendo la supervivencia económica, pueden y han sido utilizados para excusar comportamientos inmorales egoístas.
Este enfoque confunde el reconocimiento con la existencia
Mientras está claro que los grupos de personas emplean principios morales para promover su bienestar y su supervivencia, los que reclaman que las sociedades son la fuente de estos principios –ya sea a través de algún proceso de progreso social o evolución psicológica– están confundiendo el reconocimiento moral con la existencia moral. Aun las propuestas evolutivas más robustas relacionadas con el origen de la verdad moral simplemente ofrecen una descripción del por qué y cómo los humanos han empleado los principios morales para aumentar su supervivencia. Las culturas reconocen y emplean los principios morales, pero esto no significa que fueron creados a través de estos principios. De hecho, muchos científicos y filósofos son sospechosos de cualquier relación entre la evolución y la virtud moral. El proceso evolutivo muchas veces resulta en la falta de armonía y en conflictos; parece que la moralidad requiere que nosotros superemos el “monstruo evolutivo” dentro de cada uno de nosotros.
El relativismo moral es simplemente otro intento fallido de “permanecer dentro de la habitación” del universo natural para explicar la existencia de las verdades morales objetivas. La mejor explicación para la existencia de la verdad moral transcendente es simplemente la existencia de la fuente transcendente de la obligación moral que esta “afuera” de la habitación del universo natural.
J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.
Traducido por Bryan Woodward.
Doubt: A Splinter In The Mind
1. Does Truth Exist?Beyond surpassing wonder about God or mere inquiry about Him and His truth, doubt digs much deeper. Doubt doesn’t just ask, “What is real?” It poses the challenge, “Is my faith real?” Is what I believe really valid? Or is it simply a modified myth, an uber-marketed religious fairy tale supported by millions of gullible minds throughout history?
Doubt trumps wondering, and it body-slams mere curiosity. In its worst form, it goes beyond simply searching for answers to questions, inevitably denying the legitimacy of the questions themselves.
FREE “Doubting Toward Faith” Chapter – Click here to DOWNLOAD NOW!
For Christians, doubt can either serve us or sink us. It can drive us to seek truth or it can drown us in despair, hopelessness, and confusion. If ignored or left unchecked, it can bore into our brain, releasing a virus of unbelief, infecting and eventually destroying every healthy thought about God. It can take us to the place where nothing else matters. Where we find ourselves loathing even life itself.
If left unchecked, intellectual doubt metastasizes, seeping its way into our emotions and collecting a wide array of fears, worries, anxieties, anger, confusion, depression, and ultimately despair at the thought of being played or duped or envisioning a life without our once “cherished belief” in God.
Horrifying so, doubt is no stranger to our time. And capturing the zeitgeist of our changing times is quite the project. We live in a multi-textured culture that is replete with innumerable beliefs, opinions, ideas, and life philosophies. Ours is a culture of doubt and longing, faith and questioning, searching and probing. And much of the doubt has been accelerated by fast-paced change. Our culture is living between the tension of what we once were and what we are now becoming. And for many, waiting in the blank space between the definition of what we were and the search to define what we are becoming feels for the moment confusing, and even a bit uncomfortable.
Echoing this angst, Os Guinness writes, “We live in an age of doubt, disillusion and disaffiliation, which naturally prizes what has been described as ‘the faith that you go to when you don’t know where to go.”[i] Both our pluralistic and secularized culture has produced a fragilized-self as it pertains to doubt.[ii] We’ve shifted from Christianity to Anyanity (pluralism) or Noanity (atheism).
Belief isn’t nearly as comfortable and cozy as it once seemed. There’s an irritant to it; like a pebble in a shoe, these competing beliefs have made the faith walk a little less comfortable. Today, record numbers of those who once professed faith in Christ are walking away from the church, even limping, in the name of doubt.
Such torturous doubt splits the mind. And contrary to popular belief, intellectual doubt is not the opposite of faith; unbelief is. Doubt is in between, seesawing and dangling in the middle.
Yet, make no mistake. Doubt never stays put. It’s not neutral.
It makes up its mind.
It’s directional.
It’s going somewhere.
This means a person will either doubt toward unbelief or they will doubt toward faith. You’ll waver one way or another. But thankfully God can discern the nature of our doubts. There’s skeptical doubt and sincere doubt. There is antagonistic doubt and authentic doubt. And the difference between them is worlds apart. Those who hold to the latter want their doubts solved so they can go forward with God, while the former want their doubts confirmed so they can move beyond God.
Next time you find yourself experiencing a bout with doubt, or the angst of a splintered mind let me encourage you to doubt toward faith. And I’m not talking about an empty existential faith that takes a leap into the darkness, but rather a bona fide trusting faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. Yes, next time you doubt.
Doubt.
Toward.
Jesus!
[i] Os Guinness, Renaissance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 25.
[ii] Philosopher James K.A. Smith describes fragilization as follows, “In the face of different options, where people who lead ‘normal’ lives do not share my faith (and perhaps believe something different), my own faith commitment becomes fragile—put into question, dubitable.” How (Not) To Be Secular (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2014), 141.
[iii] Adapted from: DOUBTING TOWARD FAITH
Copyright © 2015 Bobby Conway
Published by Harvest House Publishers
Eugene, Oregon
www.harvesthousepublishers.com
Used by Permission.
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
If the season of their youth is neglected, how little probability is there of any good fruit afterwards? Youth is the molding age (Proverbs 22:6). How few are converted in old age? A twig is brought to any form, but grown limbs will not bend.
There is none in the world so likely as you to be instruments of their eternal good. You have peculiar advantages that no one else has; such as the interest you have in their affections; your opportunities to instill the knowledge of Christ into them, being daily with them (Deuteronomy 6:7); your knowledge of their character. If therefore you neglect, who shall help them?
Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”
Political correctness likes the road to truth to be wide, very wide, with many roads to it so that
anyone can build their own road. The obvious end result is the dissolution of absolutes. But Jesus said He was the truth. Absolutely.
Political correctness, when confronted logically, is confusing and intellectually dishonest in its attempt to relegate truth to the wide road. Truth, by definition, must be narrow and not wide. It only allows for one way.”
Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”
To convince the public otherwise, fifteenth century scientists first had to prove that the world wasn’t flat. One of their more convincing arguments was the fact that sailors at sea were first able to observe the tops of the masts of an approaching ship, then the sails, then the hull. If the world were flat, they would see the whole ship at once.
All the mathematical arguments in the world weren’t as effective as a simple observation the public could verify themselves.”
Excerpt From: Al Ries & Jack Trout. “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”
“A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation’s flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the government, the rinciples, the truths, the history which belongs to the nation that sets it forth.”
Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”
“Every person appointed to public office shall say, “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do knowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”
It would be a mistake to think that this extreme view is typical. Many atheists are far from happy with its militancy, not to mention its repressive, even totalitarian, overtones.
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”
La ciencia por sí sola no dice nada, los científicos son los que lo hacen
EspañolNo puedes poner honestidad en un tubo de ensayo.
La ciencia por sí sola no dice nada, los científicos son los que lo hacen.
Estas son algunas de las reveladoras conclusiones que podemos extraer en el escándalo del correo de calentamiento global.
“¿Dices que la ciencia no es objetiva?” No, a menos que los científicos lo sean, y la mayoría de veces no lo son. No quiero impugnar a todos los científicos, pero es cierto que algunos de ellos no han sido completamente honestos. Algunas veces mienten para conseguir o mantener sus trabajos. Algunas veces mienten para obtener fondos. Algunas veces mienten para promover sus propias creencias políticas. Algunas veces no mienten intencionalmente, pero obtienen malas conclusiones científicas porque solo están buscando lo que quieren encontrar.
La mala conducta en los científicos es más común de lo que crees. Una encuesta realizada por investigadores de la Universidad de Minnesota encontró que el 33% de los científicos admitieron haber actuado mal durante sus investigaciones, incluyendo a más de un 20% de científicos, en la mitad de su carrera, que reconocieron “haber cambiado el diseño, metodología o resultados de un estudio como resultado de presiones recibidas por parte de los patrocinadores”. ¡Piensa cuántos más habrán hecho esto, pero no quieren reconocerlo!
Mentiras descaradas y engaño parecen ser el caso con el “Clima-gate.” Los correos expuestos revelaron la selección puntual de eventos, manipulación de datos y el trabajo tras bambalinas para censurar las opiniones opositoras; así como el dudar de las mediciones realizadas al no encajar en las conclusiones pre establecidas. Matt Drudge comentó acerca de esto como el “Mayor escándalo en la ciencia moderna.”
Actualmente considero que existe otro gran escándalo científico, pero estas tergiversaciones no son tan obvias. En este escándalo, en lugar de las mentiras descaradas, las conclusiones científicas son extraídas bajo la mesa por suposiciones filosóficas previas. Tal como en el caso de la controversia sobre el origen de la vida y de las nuevas formas de vida. ¿Fueron las fuerzas naturales actuando sobre mezclas químicas inertes las que produjeron vida, o fue el resultado de una acción inteligente? ¿Las nuevas formas de vida habrán evolucionado a partir de formas de vida inferiores debido a fuerzas naturales o fue necesaria la intervención de una inteligencia?
El Dr. Stephen Meyer ha escrito un fabuloso best-seller, en donde aborda estas preguntas, llamado La Firma en la Célula. Al haber obtenido su doctorado en la Universidad de Cambridge en Filosofía de la Ciencia, el Dr. Meyer está en la cima de la cadena alimenticia de la ciencia. En nuestra entrevista radial del 8 de agosto, me comentó que ha estado trabajando en un libro de +600 páginas –el cual no limita los detalles técnicos- durante más de una década.
¿Qué califica a un hombre con un doctorado en “Filosofía de la Ciencia” para escribir un libro acerca del origen de la vida o la macro evolución? Todo. Lo que algunos científicos, y muchos en el público en general, fallan en entender es que la ciencia no puede realizarse sin un fundamento filosófico. Toda la información debe ser interpretada. Y mucho del debate entre los exponentes del Diseño Inteligente (como el Dr. Meyer) y los Darwinistas (como el profesor de Oxford Richard Dawkins) no es sobre la evidencia –pues todos están viendo la misma evidencia. Es un debate sobre la filosofía. Un debate sobre qué causas pueden ser consideradas como posibles, incluso antes de examinar la evidencia.
Los científicos buscan causas, y lógicamente, solo hay dos tipos posibles de causas –una causa inteligente o una causa no inteligente (es decir, causa natural). Una causa natural puede explicar una maravilla geológica como el Gran Cañón, pero solamente una causa inteligente puede explicar una maravilla geológica como las caras de los presidentes sobre el Monte Rushmore. Asimismo, las leyes naturales pueden explicar por qué la tinta se adhiere al papel en el libro del Dr. Meyer, pero solo una causa inteligente puede explicar la información que allí se encuentra (es decir, ¡el Dr. Meyer!)
¿Cómo se aplica esto a la pregunta acerca del origen de la vida? Mucho después de Darwin, descubrimos que una “simple” célula está comprendida por miles de volúmenes de información en el ADN en lo que se conoce como complejidad específica –en palabras del día a día, sería como un programa de software o un mensaje realmente largo. ¡Richard Dawkins reconoce que la cantidad de información contenida en la mal-llamada “ameba primitiva” ocuparía 1,000 volúmenes de una enciclopedia!
¿Cuál es el origen de todo esto? Aquí es donde entra la filosofía. El Dr. Meyer está abierto a ambos tipos de causas. Richard Dawkins no lo está. En el libro del Dr. Meyer se explica cómo las fuerzas naturales no parecen tener la capacidad de realizar tal trabajo, solo la inteligencia la tiene. Sin embargo, Dawkins y su Darwinismo presionan filosóficamente para descartar causas inteligentes antes de examinar la evidencia. Por lo tanto, para ellos no importa cuánta evidencia apunte hacia causas inteligentes (como lo hace un mensaje suficientemente largo), siempre concluirán que tuvo que ser algún tipo de causa natural. En otras palabras, su conclusión es el resultado de sus suposiciones filosóficas previas.
Mientras Dawkins no tiene una explicación natural viable para el origen de la vida o el mensaje que esta contiene, él asegura que no puede ser el producto de inteligencia. Esta suposición filosófica conduce a lo que parece ser una conclusión increíble: El hecho de creer que 1,000 volúmenes de una enciclopedia son el resultado de fuerzas naturales y ciegas es comparable a creer que la Librería del Congreso es el resultado de una explosión en una imprenta. Yo no tengo tanta fe como para creer eso.
“¡Este es un argumento del Dios de las brechas!” podría protestar Dawkins. No, no lo es. Simplemente no carecemos de una explicación natural para una forma de vida “simple” – cuya información equivalente a 1,000 enciclopedias, esto es evidencia empírica y verificable para creer en una causa inteligente. Piensa en la causa del libro El Espejismo de Dios de Richard Dawkins, por ejemplo. No es simplemente que carezcamos de una explicación natural para el libro (pues sabemos que las leyes de la tinta y el papel no escribieron un libro). Es también el hecho que conocemos que mensajes solo provienen de mentes. Por lo tanto, podemos confiadamente postular a un autor inteligente, en lugar de un proceso natural y ciego.
¿Por qué es tan difícil para Dawkins y otros Darwinistas reconocer esto? Tal vez porque se rehúsan a hacerlo. Y así, como los “científicos” del calentamiento global, ellos tienen sus razones políticas o morales para negar incluso lo obvio. O tal vez nunca se han percatado que no pueden hacer ciencia sin filosofía. Como Einstein dijo: “El nombre de ciencia es un pésimo filósofo”. Y un pésimo filósofo de la ciencia puede llegar frecuentemente a conclusiones científicas equivocadas. Esto se debe al hecho que la ciencia no habla – los científicos sí lo hacen.
El Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) es un galardonado autor y frecuente orador universitario que presenta un programa de televisión semanal en DirectTV y un programa de radio que se transmite en 186 estaciones de todo el país. Sus libros incluyen I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo) y Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case (Robando a Dios: ¿por qué los ateos necesitan a Dios para presentar su caso?).
Traducido por Erick Jimenez.
On Shariah-Governed Enclaves in France: A Clarifying Note
IslamOver the past week, I have been contacted concerning a comment I made in passing, in a recent lecture I delivered on Islam, concerning so-called no-go zones in France, governed by gang-imposed Sharia law. This was not an area of particular interest to me, and so I had regrettably not researched it with my usual care. It was not the focus of my lecture, and was only raised in response to a questioner in the Q&A concerning the effects of the increase of Islam in Europe. I had mentioned the fact that there are now Shariah courts in the UK, and had also briefly touched on so-called “no-go zones” in France. In what was regrettably a poor choice of wording on my part, I likened these Muslim enclaves in France to a cancer — my meaning of course was that such enclaves are a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism. It was not intended to refer to the individuals who live in these areas. By likening the enclaves to a cancer it was the ‘No Go Zone’ structure itself I was talking about, and not the Muslims living within such areas nor even the ones who were enforcing such a structure.
Unfortunately, my words have since been taken by several angry bloggers and made to sound like I was likening Muslim communities in general to a cancer. These bloggers then proceeded to label me a bigot, an Islamophobe, a hate-preacher and a racist (since when was Islam a race?). I have very strong relationships with Muslims across the UK and further afield, and so you can imagine why I found those comments to be rather offensive. I have never said, and never would say, anything negative about Muslim communities in general. Yes, I criticize Islamic radicalism (as I hope any moderate Muslim would join me in doing), but I always make a distinction between Islamic radicalism and the vast majority of Muslims in the west who are peace-loving. For sure, I do on occasion raise texts from the Quran and Hadith literature that I sincerely find to be troubling, but the appropriate response where such disagreement exists is to engage in reasoned dialogue and debate, not to call each other names.
Regarding the French no-go zones to which I referred, I have since taken the time to look more critically at my sources regarding this. I had previously been aware of Fox News’s apology and retraction of statements concerning these no-go zones, but my understanding is that they had dramatically overstated the case (claiming, ridiculously, for instance, that all of Birmingham in the UK was Muslim-only and implying that there were officially-designated Muslim-only zones). Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch (note: I do not endorse everything Spencer says) commented on Fox News’s retraction here:
No No-Go Zones? Really?
Since I have neither the time nor the interest to summarise and review all of the relevant information here, I will offer the following two additional articles that defend the existence of no-go zones in France and Britain:
European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 1: France (Soeren Kern)
European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain (Soeren Kern)
At the time of writing, I have not researched this topic sufficiently thoroughly to come to a firm conclusion. I do, however, have some reason for skepticism. First, it is not entirely clear to me whether these regional problems are permanent or temporary in nature. Second, it is not clear to me to what extent Islamic radicalism has a part to play in what goes on in these poverty-stricken areas, which are reportedly plagued by “high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants” (New Republic). I suspect that the case has been rather overblown.
To finish, then, it is regrettable to me that my words concerning these ‘no-go’ zones in a talk I delivered recently in England have been misunderstood and misrepresented. I did feel that it was necessary to clarify where I stand, both on my unfortunately worded comment and the existence of European “no-go” zones. I do not at this time intend to comment further on this matter.
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
One of the companies he owns is Nebraska Furniture Mart, which was founded by Rose Blumkin. He keeps in touch with the local managers in many different ways, usually informal, such as by phone, or by means of periodic meetings over a meal. The following is Fortune’s description of Buffet’s dealings with the Blumkin family, prior to the family’s splitting into competitive factions. The Blumkin family (or as Buffet refers to them, “the amazing Blumkins”) meet for dinner every few weeks at an Omaha restaurant. The Blumkins attending usually include Louis, 68, and his sons: Ron 39; Irv, 35; and Steve, 33.
The matriarch of the family and chairman of the Furniture Mart is Rose Blumkin, who emigrated from Russia as a young woman, started a tiny furniture store that offered rock-bottom prices. Her motto is “Sell cheap and tell the truth.” She built this furniture store into a business that last year did $140 million in sales. At age 94, she still works seven days a week in the carpet department.
Buffet says in his new annual report that she is clearly gathering speed and “may well reach her full potential in another five or ten years. Therefore, I’ve persuaded the Board to scrap our mandatory retirement-at-100 policy. And it’s about time,” he adds. “With every passing year, this policy has seemed sillier to me.”
Perhaps he jests, true, but Buffet simply does not regard age as having any bearing on how able a manager is. Maybe because he has bought so many strong managements and stuck with them, he has worked over the years with an unusually large number of older executives and treasured their abilities. Buffet says, “Good managers are so scarce I can’t afford the luxury of letting them go just because they’ve added a year to their age.”
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
Stopping at information, short of seeking wisdom and guidance, short-circuits young people’s progress toward future dreams and their worthy plans for changing the world. Frustration sets in as they discover they’re not totally prepared to be the change agents they want to be. The “information lie” is a subtle one, and young people may not realize that information is not enough.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”
–Unknown
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Our Lord was also “full of . . . truth.” In fact, He was the embodiment of truth. It is only when His grace leads us to know the truth that we are truly free. Jesus came, not to talk to us about God, but to show us what God was like so that the simplest mind might know the Father as intimately as the most intelligent academic.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
HOWEVER, screens can positively affect faith development, too. Bible apps are convenient, and they allow us to keep the Bible with us. Devotional material read on handheld devices and Facebook posts from ministries, churches, and friends can encourage, humble, and mature young people. Worship music and videos of church services and concerts can be inspiring. Streaming allows teens to watch church services and conferences they might have missed in person.
When it comes to meeting our deep human need for security, we want technology to take its rightful place. Digital tools can’t meet anyone’s need for security, but they can be tools that help teens develop the relationships with God and others that are real and trustworthy and nourishing.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
744. “We have more information than ever before – but less wisdom.”
— Henry Kissinger
Excerpt From: Johnson, Paul. “Churchill.”
Scientists do as well. It would be just as foolish and arbitrary to dismiss believers in God as having nothing to say, because they cannot ultimately explain the nature of God, as it would be to dismiss physicists because they do not know what energy is. And yet that is exactly what often happens.”
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
You think I’m exaggerating the benefits? If so, maybe you’ve forgotten another proverb: “A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22). Isn’t that eloquent? Literally, it says, “A joyful heart causes healing.”
Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”
Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”
Excerpt From: Reiman, Joey. “Thinking for a Living.”
Shabir Ally vs. Jonathan McLatchie (Tawhid vs. Trinity): Watch the Debate Live Online This Sunday
IslamOn Sunday 16th of August, at 5:15pm GMT (that’s 12:15pm Eastern Time; 11:15am Central Time; 9:15am Pacific Standard Time), I am going to be engaging in a public debate with Islamic scholar Dr. Shabir Ally in London, England, on the question of “What is God Like — Tawhid or Trinity?” The live-stream is embedded above. Be sure to tune in!
See my previous debate on this subject with Abdurraheem Green here. See Shabir Ally’s previous debate on this subject with Nabeel Qureshi here.
For anyone in the UK who might wish to attend this event in person, the details are found on the promotional poster below: