Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Grandverbalizer19 does lots of verbalizing . . .

. . . and lives up to his name!
Ahmad Deedat-style debating tactics Part 2

The Grandverbalizer19’s response to Part 1 was another typical response – But I am grateful for him allowing my three responses in his comboxes.

Honestly, this seems like another Ahmad Deedat/Zakir Naik method - "throw every argument out there at him, including the kitchen sink!"

It is clear that the Grandverbalizer19 took all the verses of the NT that he cited out of context. I showed this clearly.

My focus was on how he took the NT verses out of context each time. GV19 spent most of his response on many other things, except the issue of taking verses out of context. He clearly took all the verses out of context; but when we quote Surah 9, we are not taking it out of historical context, since it was the last or next to the last Surah revealed, at the time when Muhammad was commanded to fight all and spread Islam (lots of verses in the Hadith to back this up); and the results were they conquered Mesopotamia (today’s Iraq, at the time part of the Persian Empire), the rest of Persia, the Middle East (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon), Egypt, North Africa, Spain – all by aggressive war. They had no legitimate right to do that. But that seems to be what Islam really was – the whole major context of Islam from Medina (622 AD) on is battles, fighting, Jihad, Qatal (to fight to the death, to kill, to slay), etc.

The bottom line is that the aggressive war texts in the Bible are all in the OT, and so were only for the nation of Israel at that time, under the old covenant; and these are abrogated by the NT (Hebrews 8:13; Matthew 21:43 ( Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel); John 18:36; Matthew 26:52; Ephesians 6:12), yet the aggressive war texts in the Qur’an and Hadith come at the end of Muhammad’s career; and they are all still in force for Muslims and have been throughout Islamic history; and they provide the texts and argumentation of all Jihadist movements of the 20th century and Islamic governments that institute Islamic law.

Romans 13:1-8 is for the secular state government; not for the church. At the time Romans was written (57 AD), it was the Roman Empire under cruel and barbaric Caesars such as Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; the Roman Empire persecuted Christians for over 300 years. Remember that, my friend Grandverbalizer19! Christianity grew under persecution; Islam did not. Christianity was not political; Islam is inherently political; Christianity did not commit aggressive wars in its texts, nor in its earliest history; Islam, by contrast was dominated by war contexts and situations.

Focus on Surah 9 - it is all out aggressive war against the pagans in Mecca in verse 5; and it is open ended warfare against “the people of book” (Ahl Al Kitab اهل الکتاب ) in 9:29 until they are subdued and humiliated, having to pay the Jizye tax and reduced to dhimmi status; and this is exactly what the followers of Muhammad did when over the next several centuries, conquered all the lands east and west of the Arabian peninsula.

Context in the Qur’an? There is not much context! There is some, but not much in the Qur’an itself. One has to go to the Hadith (Traditions)and Tafsirs(commentaries), and Tarikh (History) and Sirat (Life of Muhammad) for that. Except for the first Surah, the Opening prayer, (فاتحه ) , Surahs are arranged by size, not by chronology. And most Muslim scholars agree that Surah 9, Repentence is the last one revealed, or next to the last – some believe Surah 5 Al Maida was the last one revealed, while some believe that Surah 110 was the last.

Imam Al Bukhari says that Surah 9, Repentance ( ال توبه) or the Immunity ( Bara’a بَرَاءَةٌ) is the last one revealed. (Hadith Sahih Al Bukhari , volume 6, book 60, no. 129).

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 129:
Narrated Al-Bara:
“The last Sura that was revealed was Bara'a( براء ه) “Immunity”, from 9:1), and the last Verse that was revealed was: "They ask you for a legal verdict, Say: Allah's directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs." (4.176)
Al Bukhari’s collection of traditions is the most respected Hadith collection by all Sunni Muslims. There is no getting around this. “Sahih” means “correct”, “right”, “true”, “genuine”.

When Surah 9:5; and 9:29 say what they do; and yes, understanding the “Asbab Al Nuzul”
(reasons or occasion for the revelation = اسباب النزول)

We can clearly see that aggressive warfare against all was the final stage of Jihad/Qatal in Muhammad’s career. In the Meccan period of Surahs, revealed from 610-622 AD, it was peace and tolerance and he was persecuted by the pagan Arabs in Mecca who wanted to hold on to the Kaaba as a house of 360 idols. Later in Medina (622-632 AD), Muhammad got new revelations to attack the caravans, and fight in self-defense, and then last, he got the revelation to attack aggressively to spread Islam. I don’t see how the Muslim can escape this fact, both in all the Islamic texts and the history of Islam after Muhammad died in 632 AD.

In the Hadith, the Sirat (life, biography) of the Prophet Muhammad, the Tafsirs, the Tarikh, etc. It seems clear that the Muslims were commanded to aggressively fight all pagans/polytheists and they had the choice to either repent and become Muslims or be killed (The Arabian Peninsula was the first result of that; being completely wiped clean of all pagans and non-Muslims by force.)

Surah 9:29 says:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِر
وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ

Surah 9:29 and the historical background of Muhammad preparing to attack the Byzantine Empire for the battle of Tabuk; and the whole history of the Arabs conquering Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, N. Africa, Spain, Persia, and seeking to conquer Constantinople is clear that Surah 9:29 was open ended, being one of the last Surahs and verses revealed to Muhammad. The Muslims after Muhammad died were fully carrying out his example and commands. I just don’t see how Muslims can avoid this fact, when you look at all the relevant information. To be fair, Islamic jurisprudence ( fiq) does say that only a recognized Islamic leader can call for Jihad/ Qatal. Certainly Muhammad and his successors (Khalifs) are legitimate Islamic leaders who can call for war against the pagans and Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians; and later against Hindus and Buddhists. All of the centuries from Muhammad’s time until 1924, there was a Khalif (Islamic leader; deputy on earth, successor to the prophet). Ataturk, the secular leader of the modern country of Turkey, abolished the Khalifate in 1924. The united Islamic Umma (The Community of all Muslims under one nation) under the Ottoman Empire had been shrinking for a long time. The Ottoman Empire was defeated and broken after World War I, and the modern Muslim countries emerged. Modern Jihad movements today see themselves as seeking to return to the war/Jihad/Qatal of the earlier Muslim periods; and they are also calling for the re-establishment of the Khalifate.

This article confirms this, quoting the Muslim scholars and Tafsirs themselves on the principle of abrogation.

All the relevant information is there. It is clear.

Jihad (striving for Allah) and Qatal (killing, fighting, slaying) had at least 3 historical stages:
1. Reading the Qur’an, preaching, under Persecution, no fighting back. (Meccan Surahs, 610 – 622 AD)
2. Fight in Self-defense. (Surah 2:190-193 is an example of this) (early Medina period)
3. Aggressive all our warfare ( Surah 9:1-5- against pagans) and 9:29 – against the Jews and Christians; the end of Muhammad’s career and all subsequent Islamic history until they are stopped by someone.) (later Medina period)

Mohammad confirms this in the Hadith:
Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
The Grandverbalizer19 quoted from 2:190-193 of the Qur’an. Yes, 190-192 gives more context and it says to only attack if they attack first. Ok, but that was the second stage of the revelation of Jihad/Qatal (fighting, killing, slaying).

I just want to make a comment on verse 193:
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors.” (2:193 Holy Qur'an.)

The Arabic word here translated into English here and in Qur'an 8:39 is "persecution" is "fitnah" or "fitneh". فتنه

I am sorry, but this word does not mean "persecution" at all!

It means "rebellion", "mutiny", "treason", "confusion", "sedition", "revolt", "calamity". Anything, any questioning or disobedience against Islam or Islamic morals or behavior is interpreted as "rebellion" against the Islamic state, and that is why they fanned out in aggressive war for centuries until they were stopped by Charles Martel in 732 AD at the Battle of Tours; and in Vienna in the 1500s, etc.

Everything in the west can be interpreted by the Muslims as "fitneh" - capitalism, banks, women's rights, clothing, advertisement, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy, art, media, music, Christian evangelism, etc. ; since they do not conform to Islamic law.

Grandverbalizer19, I wish you the true peace of God, which is found only in Isa Al Masih (Jesus the Messiah), which He offers you – Matthew 11:28-30; John 14:27; Romans 5:1-11.

In order to have true peace, you must first realize that you are a sinner and rebellious and not good and you are, (all of us, myself included, are sinners, until Christ saves us) making "war" (rebellion in sin) in your heart against God. Until you see your sinful heart, you will not understand nor believe.

Mark 7:20-23
20And He [Jesus Al Masih] was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."


thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

Ken would you call yourself a dispensationalist, a dominionist, do you believe in covenant theology?

So you do agree that the United States should not force women to keep children they don't want? Am I to understand this is your view?

Why were the reformers against usury? What is the Christian view on usury?

Should Christians move against their government or support it fully? Should Christians embrace slavery? Should Christians embrace Obama?

Do you support Glen Beck that any church that preaches the 'social gospel' should be abandoned?

Again I'm trying to understand you in your own words from your own sources?

I am also curious what you think about David Bukay?

Do you and David Bukay share similar religious convictions?

Is he a Calvinist? Is his doctrine sound? Is he a person guided by the Holy Spirit?

Or is that you and David Bukay have similar political views that over lap?

Thank you for your energetic responses Ken.

Ken said...

We have a saying in Farsi, which comes up with Iranians within a few minutes of conversation:

سیاست پدر و مادر نداره

"Siasat pedar o madar nadareh!"

"Politics has no father or mother!"

Meaning politics is illegitimate, cruel, inhuman, corrupt, sneaky, and will cause someone to turn against one's own family.

As Gary DeMar said, “Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often.”

I do believe that abortion is wrong and sin; because it is murder. (see Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:13-18)

I am not a theonomist or dominionist, and I am not a classical dispensationalist either.

I am a simple Bible-believing Christian, baptist in respect to the issue of baptism, and Reformed / Calvinistic in regard to God's Sovereignty in salvation and Providence over all things.

The usury question - I would honestly have to research that issue more in order to have an intelligent answer. I could type some stuff off the top of my head, but that would not be prudent.

Glen Beck is a Mormon; so he is a member of a non-Christian cult. (As is Mitt Romney and Harry Reid and Orin Hatch) Mormonism is polytheism (many gods) and pagan and not Christian at all. But they are free to believe in that.

Beck is entertaining and deliberately controversial - he gets people animated and he gets reactions from the left wing media, like John Steward of the Daily Show, and Bill Maher and the commentators at MSNBC.

However, some of the points he makes are good; and conservatives share and overlap on many ideas about moral law and society and conservative values without agreeing with every thing that any one person says.


Ken said...

Obviously slavery is wrong (1 Timothy 1:10 – kidnappers; the whole system was based on kidnapping and force; Revelation 18:1-24 – especially verse 13, talks about the evil of slave trading of the souls of men); that is why a properly informed Christian public and culture eventually got rid of the slave trade and slavery. William Wilberforce was an Evangelical Christian in England and fought against the slave trade, and eventually it was declared illegal. European slavery and American slavery were evil, being based on racial lines and kidnapping and slave trading in Africa. Hebrew slavery was different in the OT law – it was when a person was poor, they voluntary made themselves indentured servants and work for others so that they could eat and survive.

John Piper, at his web-site, has some great articles and a book on him, and a chapter in another book on Wilberforce.

You can read and listen to whole thing for free, that eventually became the book that Piper wrote:

You wrote:
Again I'm trying to understand you in your own words from your own sources?

Are you asking a question or making a statement or just being rhetorical, or what?

You don’t focus on the Christian sources much (Biblical texts, sound teachers; historical theology). When you do cite Bible verses, they are almost always out of context and Ahmad Deedat -style argumentation with unrelated issues thrown in with political stuff mixed in. Your main focus is more on modern political figures and commentators and cultural issues in the media, it seems.

David Bukay, I honestly don’t know anything about the man. But I read his article, and it is well-researched, footnoted, organized, and I found that it is true, because I have already researched all those issues for years; and he did the best job I have seen of summarizing the issues of abrogation in Islam and the Qur’an. He has gathered up all the relevant material under one article and so, I didn’t have to spend more time typing it all out or finding a similar article at

You should stick to the issues, content, and argument, rather than focus on the personality and the person who writes. That is called “ad hominem” argumentation and you seem to use lots of “guilt by association” argumentation.

David Waltz said...

Hello Ken,

I suspect that Mormons rarely (if ever) read this blog; but yours truly has studied Mormonism since 1987, and would like to comment on the following you posted:

>> Glen Beck is a Mormon; so he is a member of a non-Christian cult. (As is Mitt Romney and Harry Reid and Orin Hatch) Mormonism is polytheism (many gods) and pagan and not Christian at all. But they are free to believe in that.>>

Members of cults are monolithic in their theological beliefs, and Mormons are anything but monolithic concerning the Godhead (i.e the precise relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost). I am pretty sure that either Tom or myself have linked you to the following in the past:

Are Mormons Trinitarian? - An Interview with Dr. David Paulsen:

Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity – Blake Ostler:

I have been chastised here at BA in the past for using the term “anti-Catholic” to describe individuals who believe that the RCC is not a Christian church; it seems to this simply beachbum that the phrase “pagan and not Christian at all” vastly exceeds any negativity that may be attached to the term “anti-Catholic”…

Grace and peace,


Ken said...

Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

If Mormonism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, teaches that there are other gods in the universe, and it does indeed teach that; then it is polytheism and it is pagan and it is outside of Christianity. It is a cult.

As pertaining to the nature of God; even Islam's doctrine of Monotheism (Towhid توحید) is closer to Christianity and Trinitarian Monotheism than Mormonism is.

It is their own history and theology that condemns them as outside of Christianity, not me.

They have recently been trying to soften their doctrines and become more "evangelical friendly".